Ugh! Birthers....

[Astor]

How do you figure?

 

Watch Demolition Man.

[Lord of Hunger]

You are an American if you are born in America, born to an American parent or if you have become a naturalized American citizen. That is unless you renounce your American citizenship. Politics or religion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP. You can be on the furthest edge of the left or the right and you would still be an American. You can also love your country and still be critical of it. It is my belief that the American idea is to always strive to make this country better. You can't get better without first seeing what is wrong.

That's great!

 

A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country. And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.

Wow what is the American President wearing?

I didn't say he wasn't. I only made that point because he didn't to begin with and only seemed to do so because of political pressure rather than any actual sudden out-burst of symbolic patriotism.

Although I see no reason any one would have to wear a flag to prove their love for the country. Just find it funny that people pay more attention to blogs instead of looking at the President them-self and I wonder why people cannot believe their own eyes on the birth certificate. It is because they are reading other people opinion on blog instead of checking the facts for themselves.

Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial.

Er...huh? I think mimartin just proved that he has in fact done that...

So if somebody's a patriot, he's not allowed to honestly assess what's wrong with his country? He's just supposed to blindly cheerlead?

You misunderstand me. I'm talking practicality, not idealism. A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love. Their representatives hold a substantial section of our government on all levels.

Exactly, delude your citizens and persuade them not to observe reality. :thmbup1

Who's reality? Yours? Mine? Theirs? If we're talking politics, then reality is certainly relative to each person.

 

Hell, that's also true in eastern thought.

 

Have you been watching Glen Beck too much?

Glen Beck is not the first person to emphasize symbolic patriotism to an extreme, nor is the only one.

 

And furthermore, ignoring it because one disapproves of the direction of the country is, at least in my view, rather silly. If you want to get the common man enthusiastic about something above his understanding, you need an abstract object of his attention. Maybe you personally don't respond to the stars and stripes with tears of red, white, and blue, but a lot of folks good and bad do, genuinely and not always ignorantly.

 

America is not going to able to get anywhere if we have Presidents who can't balance challenging Americans to improve with reaffirming their national identity. And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand. We can have a national catharsis over "American Imperialism" after we actually do good by those we claim to have wronged (true or not).

 

Talk is cheap.

[mimartin]

A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country.

I hope people disagree with me in varying ways. Unlike people that wrongly believe they have all the answers, I actually know I don’t. Guess what the people that tell you how intelligent they are and how have all the answers, don't.

 

Just so you know a good portion of the country also voted to put President Obama in office. Just because you disagree with them does not mean they don’t exist. More people on the other side turned out for the mid-term election. Nothing new about that just look at every other mid-term election for the past 50 years.

 

Also the ones that actually honor the Constitution, especially the part about Freedom of Speech agree in varying ways with me.

 

I didn't say he wasn't. I only made that point because he didn't to begin with and only seemed to do so because of political pressure rather than any actual sudden out-burst of symbolic patriotism.

So you are saying he is damn if he doesn't wear it, but equally as damn if he does wear it. I always figured that was the case thanks for letting me know my suspicions were correct.

 

 

And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.

Already stated that there are.

You can be on the furthest edge of the left or the right and you would still be an American. You can also love your country and still be critical of it.

 

You were the one that implied that if you were critical of your country, then you were not a citizen. I merely stated that anyone can be patriotic, yet still critical. I even stated from the far left or right. I hoped you would understand that includes all those in between without having to state it.

Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial.

Yeah, make them think you are doing something, but just pay the problem “lip service.” Got it!

 

I would much rather someone actually do something about a problem rather than just have outburst of “God bless America.” Wearing a Flag does nothing for strengthen education, to stop terrorism or protect our borders. If it did those problems would not be around today as they would have been solved by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.

 

A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love...

Just so you know the opposite of love is indifference. Being critical shows that a person cares. Doing nothing shows that someone has given up.

 

And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand.

Have you ever taken a class on problem solving? One of the first things you need to do so solve a problem is first define what the problem is.

 

Also not everything wrong America has done in it past can be made right. We can't bring back the Native Americans, we cannot undo the Japanese American Internment Camps, we can’t stop the unethical 40 year experiment on human subject at Tuskegee, we cannot go back in time and stop our support of dictators, we can’t go back and help the people of Afghanistan after they helped us win the Cold War, we cannot make it right with those allowed to be slaves under government sanction slavery. I could continue if you would like…

 

Do you really think any of those wrongs can be made right? or Do you actually believe those were not wrongs at all?

 

 

Glen Beck is not the first person to emphasize symbolic patriotism to an extreme, nor is the only one.

 

Glen Beck would be ban from this forum in 3 minutes 2 years for his ad hominem arguments alone. Of course he most likely does not even know what that means.

 

Um mimartin, I think you are mistaken about the American Soil part If you were born in a military base, you are born on American Soil. All military stations are, like embassies, American soil.

You are semi-correct. If both parents are American citizens, then you are correct. If one one parent isn't an American citizen then I'm correct. I should have looked it up instead of going by memory from my friend born in Cuba to a US military doctor. Of course if my friend would have been born before 1789 then he still could have become President.

 

Maybe they should contact Dan Rather.

I think they may have already contacted him and they had the very same luck with the forger as Lt. Col. Bill Burkett did.

 

Watch Demolition Man.

You actually may be correct. I’m wondering if people are using fictional movies and television shows to form opinions. ***Beat the information out of him ---that worked for Jack Bauer. ***

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

A good portion of the country (not necessarily me) disagrees with you (in varying ways). They vote. They participate in government. They pay taxes. They are citizens of this country. And they are just as enthusiastic about their ideals of patriotism as you are.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your point here? Are you just pointing out that there are millions of intentionally ignorant Americans out there? If a legal burden is passed, intelligent people let it go. I guess we should water everything down in our growing self-made idiocracy

 

Because some people need to "villainize" something and our government, education system, and media frankly doesn't like letting them do that with Islamic terrorists or illegal immigrants...for whatever reason, valid or not. This is not changing any time soon, and the causes are not entirely insubstantial.

This is hard to disagree with... yet I am not sure why it is important? Again, we are talking about a "some people" who do not think critically; are admittedly a part of our society yet it seems like you celebrate that?

 

You misunderstand me. I'm talking practicality, not idealism. A good portion of the population believes those that criticize the country in the way that they do demonstrate anti-patriotism towards America rather than tough patriotic love. Their representatives hold a substantial section of our government on all levels.

Another celebration of the mediocre. That good portion of the population slept through history class and were raised by J Edgar Hoover, I guess.

 

Who's reality? Yours? Mine? Theirs? If we're talking politics, then reality is certainly relative to each person.

Perception is relative, reality is what it is. Some say perception is reality, I say some people are stupid and their perceptions ought be ignored.

 

** Hell, that's also true in eastern thought. ** (I told Master Mark one time.... you know, so-and-so is crazy as a loon. He looked at me and said, "Grenn, sometimes crazy make very good Kung Fu." Deadpan serious, didn't debate my point for a minute, just pointed out the danger)

 

If you want to get the common man enthusiastic about something above his understanding, you need an abstract object of his attention. Maybe you personally don't respond to the stars and stripes with tears of red, white, and blue, but a lot of folks good and bad do, genuinely and not always ignorantly.

I wantz be comun. Yes there are exceptions... like my Grandfather the WW2 vet... those that serve our country can be enthusiastic beyond reason: and I understand, their sacrifice is greater, therefore so is there attachment. Most of the "common" men you describe conjure visions of hayseeds.

 

America is not going to able to get anywhere if we have Presidents who can't balance challenging Americans to improve with reaffirming their national identity.

Besides being grammatically awful, this is a bunch of hooey. Nationalism is not going to save anyone... except maybe Kim Jong Il. Nationalism of the kind you seem to be referring to, several times in your post, is a willfully-ignorant Nationalism, and will step out on a limb and say if you are and choose to remain willfully ignorant, that is stupidity.

 

And frankly, I don't have patience for Obama or any politician who says America has done wrong to the world without making significant effort to right those wrongs before hand. We can have a national catharsis over "American Imperialism" after we actually do good by those we claim to have wronged (true or not).

Uh...... agreed

 

Talk is cheap.

[Lord of Hunger]

Just so you know a good portion of the country also voted to put President Obama in office.

Yes they did, and now a large portion of them seem to be regretting so (I live in a very "liberal" area, and I've been getting a good sample of opinions among other forms of research).

Just because you disagree with them does not mean they don’t exist.

Um, not saying they didn't....

Also the ones that actually honor the Constitution, especially the part about Freedom of Speech agree in varying ways with me.

Honoring the Constitution is a claim that just about everyone loves to make and frankly can. This is because it has a lot of parts.

So you are saying he is damn if he doesn't wear it, but equally as damn if he does wear it. I always figured that was the case thanks for letting me know my suspicions were correct.

I am saying that he is of the same opinion as you are that symbolic patriotism doesn't have substantial value, so when he does wear it we know it's a political move. I'm just pointing out that's not really a good position to put yourself into as a President.

You were the one that implied that if you were critical of your country, then you were not a citizen.

Uh, no. Sorry, but if you got that then you misunderstand me. I am saying that there's a part of the population that believes such and has significant influence in the country. There's a difference.

 

To clarify, I am not arguing a position of my own that I hold with strong emotional drive. I really don't have that many positions of that type in politics anymore because there are few if almost no political causes that can inspire me at this juncture. I argue, for the sake of argument, political practicality, which from where I'm standing is the only way that America's political scar is going to be healed.

I merely stated that anyone can be patriotic, yet still critical. I even stated from the far left or right. I hoped you would understand that includes all those in between without having to state it.

I do, but I've obviously given you the impression that I don't. If so, my apologies.

Yeah, make them think you are doing something, but just pay the problem “lip service.” Got it!

Put it this way: you want reforms to the politics and culture of this country, correct? Trying to impose that on half of the population over night is not easy. And frankly, the attempts of certain politicians to do so has caused more problem than its solved.

I would much rather someone actually do something about a problem rather than just have outburst of “God bless America.” Wearing a Flag does nothing for strengthen education, to stop terrorism or protect our borders. If it did those problems would not be around today as they would have been solved by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.

Well here's the thing: Ronald Reagan and George Bush (the latter briefly) got the majority of the population enthusiastic about solving America's problems with that "God bless America" spontaneous outburst. They made the country's problems matter to a segment of the population who don't readily believe there is a problem because they aren't directly experiencing it.

Have you ever taken a class on problem solving? One of the first things you need to do so solve a problem is first define what the problem is.

Yes, and after you do that you start on the other steps. Unfortunately, a lot of people get stuck on step one because it's the easiest.

Also not everything wrong America has done in it past can be made right. We can't bring back the Native Americans, we cannot undo the Japanese American Internment Camps, we can’t stop the unethical 40 year experiment on human subject at Tuskegee, we cannot go back in time and stop our support of dictators, we can’t go back and help the people of Afghanistan after they helped us win the Cold War, we cannot make it right with those allowed to be slaves under government sanction slavery. I could continue if you would like…

And endlessly apologizing about it is tiresome and insulting to everyone (conqueror and conquered alike).

Do you really think any of those wrongs can be made right? or Do you actually believe those were not wrongs at all?

I believe that the best thing to do is to remain positive through it all. America the Wretched and Disgusting just doesn't sell well.

Glen Beck would be ban from this forum in 3 minutes 2 years for his ad hominem arguments alone. Of course he most likely does not even know what that means.

Glen Beck is a repetitive talking point for groups such as MSNBC and Daily Kos who are of the opinion that if they just point out how Fox News is the embodiment of all evil they are somehow divinely inspired. The same goes for Sarah Palin. If these people are so "stupid", they aren't worth bringing up in the first place (which I was trying to get at...sort of ).

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your point here? Are you just pointing out that there are millions of intentionally ignorant Americans out there? If a legal burden is passed, intelligent people let it go. I guess we should water everything down in our growing self-made idiocracy

My point is that many of the "progressive" reforms that are attempted die before they are even enacted because they lack a format that ALL Americans can get behind, which is necessary in politics so we can move forward.

This is hard to disagree with... yet I am not sure why it is important? Again, we are talking about a "some people" who do not think critically; are admittedly a part of our society yet it seems like you celebrate that?

It's not a question of whether I like it or not, it just is. My personal preferences are irrelevant in the eyes of truth.

 

DISCLAIMER: If you find that statement arrogant beyond belief or wrong, feel free to challenge it.

Another celebration of the mediocre. That good portion of the population slept through history class and were raised by J Edgar Hoover, I guess.

And they will continue to do so unless educational reforms can be presented in such away that everyone will get behind them.

Perception is relative, reality is what it is. Some say perception is reality, I say some people are stupid and their perceptions ought be ignored.

Then I guess you probably should not be replying to my posts.

 

To be honest, I am not sure yet that I entirely agree with the idea of reality and perception being one. My personal meditation and study of various spiritual, philosophical, and psychological information says so, but as of yet, I refuse to make any absolute all-encompassing conclusion until I'm sure that I can't be sure of anything.

** Hell, that's also true in eastern thought. ** (I told Master Mark one time.... you know, so-and-so is crazy as a loon. He looked at me and said, "Grenn, sometimes crazy make very good Kung Fu." Deadpan serious, didn't debate my point for a minute, just pointed out the danger)

 

I wantz be comun. Yes there are exceptions... like my Grandfather the WW2 vet... those that serve our country can be enthusiastic beyond reason: and I understand, their sacrifice is greater, therefore so is there attachment. Most of the "common" men you describe conjure visions of hayseeds.

Perhaps. On the other hand, their set-mindedness does have value in that it is, in and of itself, very consistent. Environmentalism, if we are to continue to follow the stereotype that it is a "liberal" paradigm, has radically changed its stance on critical issues a number of times (accurate science or not). It does not help their argument that the world is warming up when about twenty years ago they were arguing that it was cooling down.

Besides being grammatically awful, this is a bunch of hooey. Nationalism is not going to save anyone... except maybe Kim Jong Il. Nationalism of the kind you seem to be referring to, several times in your post, is a willfully-ignorant Nationalism, and will step out on a limb and say if you are and choose to remain willfully ignorant, that is stupidity.

Expecting high-intellect of the consistently non-intellectual is impractical beyond belief. I believe this is why our education system is having so many hiccups right now.

[purifier]

Why do you think that?

 

Well...let it get repealed then, let's take the chance and see what happens. But if the end result is not what you expected, and it turns out to go into a negative direction in the long run, from what you were hoping, don't look at me. Because I will just say "I told you so!"

 

 

 

 

 

How do you figure?

 

1st it would take generations for someone that was not a born in American, but obtained American citizenship through immigration to even have a chance at being elected president.

 

Yeah I know that Mimartin, didn't say otherwise.

 

 

2nd How is someone that actually had to study and work at becoming a citizen less of an American than someone that happened to be born here?

 

Your too quick to make assumptions about me from my statements Mimartin, and I really have no idea how a immigrant with U.S. citizenship, would be less of a american citizen than anyone who is actually born in the U.S. like me.

 

Hmmm, but I tell you what......I'll ask a close relative of mine who is from Coventry, UK (who is now a U.S. Citizen btw) what the difference is, just for you Mimartin. Even though she might be surprised by my question after all the years that I've known her. It's not like were blood relatives or anything.......Oh Wait! My mother is a blood relative, gosh darn it! I keep forgetting that. Well then maybe I shouldn't ask her a question like that after all, she might get the wrong idea and make the assumption that I was being discriminative against immigrants or something, despite one giving birth to me. Now that would be really hypocritical of me wouldn't it? Well...she probably wouldn't make a far out assumption like that, since she knows me very well by now, unlike what soooome people on this forum seem to do. *sigh*

 

 

 

 

3rd If your one of your parents served in the military and you were born while they were stationed overseas then why should you not be allowed to be President?

 

Do you mean whether you were born to a U.S. citizen parent over seas, and even if your birth was NOT recorded as a a birth to a U.S. citizen at a U.S. consulate overseas? If yes, then I don't see a problem with that....sure, why not....I say give them a shot at it.

 

 

 

Personally I do not see where being born in the USA makes anyone superior to any other American citizen.

 

Well good for you Mimartin. You should run a political campaign against ethnocentrism in this country, most Anthropologist and democratic socialists like Michael Moore would be delighted with your cause. NOW GO FORTH AND MAKE IT HAPPEN MAN!

 

 

Even more I do not see how we would possibly regret repealing a law that in antiquated. It made sense 100 years ago, but today with military bases all over the world, diplomatic stationed all over the world and with Americans involved in international business all over the world it makes no sense.

 

Like I said to WCH above: Well...let it get repealed then, let's take the chance and see what happens. But if the end result is not what both of you expected, and it turns out to go into a negative direction in the long run, from what both of you were hoping, don't look at me.

 

 

 

Not all of our best and brightest are born on American soil.

 

Right, didn't say they all were Mimartin.

 

 

 

 

 

And just a word to the LF community here: I noticed many people on these forums in the past, and just recently, refer to American Indians as "Native Americans", that can be confusing to half-breeds like me, since most individuals who are actually born in the U.S. are Native Americans. Anyway just my two cents about that......

[mimartin]

Yeah I know that Mimartin, didn't say otherwise.

Funny I could recall you wrote something about this causing problems in a lifetime.

Now that would be a serious mistake and would cause more problems for this country then you'd ever want in your lifetime. If you do away with the requirement of this law, then everyone would regret it for generations to come.

 

Since most people do not live for generations I have a really hard time seeing how you did not say otherwise. Silly me.

 

 

Your too quick to make assumptions about me from my statements Mimartin, and I really have no idea how a immigrant with U.S. citizenship, would be less of a american citizen than anyone who is actually born in the U.S. like me.

I made no assuption.... Didn't you say write it would be a mistake to allow them to run for president?

 

That in no way means I assumed anything about you. I thought you wrote that you did not want to change the law to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. But really nice of you to imply that I am calling you anything and thanks for your creative writing, have you considered for the Coruscant Entertainment Centre?

Do you mean whether you were born to a U.S. citizen parent over seas, and even if your birth was NOT recorded as a a birth to a U.S. citizen at a U.S. consulate overseas? If yes, then I don't see a problem with that....sure, why not....I say give them a shot at it.

No I meant not born on US soil. You do know that is the law you are against changing right?

 

 

 

Well good for you Mimartin. You should run a political campaign against ethnocentrism in this country, most Anthropologist and democratic socialists like Michael Moore would be delighted with your cause. NOW GO FORTH AND MAKE IT HAPPEN MAN!

who is making assumptions?

 

I guess that means you don’t want to discuss the topic in a discussion forum.

 

Right, didn't say they all were Mimartin.

You do know I did not state you did?

 

I do think in a disscusion forum that I am allowed to state my opinions too.

 

 

And just a word to the LF community here: I noticed many people on these forums in the past, and just recently, refer to American Indians as "Native Americans", that can be confusing to half-breeds like me, since most individuals who are actually born in the U.S. are Native Americans. Anyway just my two cents about that......

My grandmother was a Cherokee. If you called her an Indian she would have kick your teeth out. My great grandmother was full-blooded. Never meet her, but according to my grandmother if you called my great grandmother an Indian she would have killed you. I’m nothing, but out of respect for my grandmother I will either use the tribe name or Native American. In my case it has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with not wanting my grandmother to crawl out of her grave and kick my teeth out.

[Tommycat]

In my case it has nothing to do with political correctness, but everything to do with not wanting my grandmother to crawl out of her grave and kick my teeth out.

 

If she crawls outta her grave you might want to check to see if it's Z-Day first...

 

@purifier: Native American is the term used because they are from the indigenous peoples of the American continents. It's better than calling them Indians which is a term for those born in India. If you want to call Native Americans anything but that, you MUST learn their tribe. Since there are literally hundreds of tribes(most people only know of about 3-5) I think it's much easier to use Native Americans. Since you want a designation for those born in the US I suggest 'Merikins.

 

Using Americans, kinda seems odd. Seeing as then we have North America which includes Mexico, the US and Canada. Central America which includes um.. Panama, *mumble* and a few other countries. Then we have South America... man I forgot most of my geography... I remember Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, and Peru. Oh and Venezuela. Can't forget the one we get most of our oil from.

 

Long story short, though we adopted American as ours, calling yourself a Native American is a bad idea.

 

My feelings kinda mirror those of Teddy Roosevelt

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

 

I think all this squabbling over PC terms is silly, and does nothing but divide us into handy groups to fight against.

[Darth Avlectus]

@ thread: I thought the reason for the whole "foreign born is not allowed to become president" thing was so that other countries could not have put in a puppet to usurp our constitution and cede our sovereignty to another country?

 

Though both main political parties have done such a good job of making us *so* in debt over the years that it wouldn't surprise me if this or similar was already the case. Ironically we did it all from within the country--didn't need a foreign puppet to do it.

 

*IS part Quapaw and looks around thread*

 

@purifier: Native American is the term used because they are from the indigenous peoples of the American continents. It's better than calling them Indians which is a term for those born in India. If you want to call Native Americans anything but that, you MUST learn their tribe.

I believe purifier knows that. There might even be a chance he and I are distantly related through our common heritage.

Since there are literally hundreds of tribes(most people only know of about 3-5) I think it's much easier to use Native Americans. Since you want a designation for those born in the US I suggest 'Merikins.

 

Using Americans, kinda seems odd. Seeing as then we have North America which includes Mexico, the US and Canada. Central America which includes um.. Panama, *mumble* and a few other countries. Then we have South America... man I forgot most of my geography... I remember Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, and Peru. Oh and Venezuela. Can't forget the one we get most of our oil from.

 

Long story short, though we adopted American as ours, calling yourself a Native American is a bad idea.

Especially if you have no Native heritage to begin with.

 

Unless you're related to a tribe that resided at least in some part/way/shape/form historically within the borders of what is now U.S.A., you are not Native American. Granted while there is undeniably crossover of U.S.A. and Mexico with some tribes (and I do also believe Aztecs did move around quite a bit too, before Cortez and Columbus and them), Native Mexican =/= Native American. Same with Canada.

Just like anything not Native American is simply not Native American.

 

It's also rather insulting when academics (especially secularists) try to make excuses for the revisions to textbooks that erase Native Americans from history by simple omission. In some cases the same crowd even claim all Native Mexican = all Native Americans because they're on a rant about how there should be no border control. In which case I have to stop them and tell them history like it really is.

 

My feelings kinda mirror those of Teddy Roosevelt

 

I think all this squabbling over PC terms is silly, and does nothing but divide us into handy groups to fight against.

 

There ought to be adequate terms to make distinctions: too few and you're just lumping us all in together, too many and it becomes divisive.

[Totenkopf]

There ought to be adequate terms to make distinctions: too few and you're just lumping us all in together, too many and it becomes divisive.

 

 

I think TR's quote just meant that we should focus more on being Americans in the here and now than on where our ancestors came from. IE, focus on what unites us, not something that divides us into little groups at odds w/each other.

 

1/26/11

Just saw this.....http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489

[Tommycat]

Update: Well today Obama released his birth certificate. I say it was a bad move. The only people who still believed he was not born in the US is such a small portion that it's pretty insignificant. Releasing his birth certificate only serves to shift the debate to other issues, while the birthers fade to obscurity. Not having released it birthers would come out and look like fools when he releases it during the election season. With their main focus on the citizen issue, once you take that away, they are left looking silly(well more silly than they are now haha).

[urluckyday]

It was a stupid debate, I'm glad it's done and even for as much as I dislike Obama, at least we don't have to deal with some sort of scandal, and he can just keep focusing on the actual issues that matter.

[mimartin]

I completely disagree with you. The birthers seemed to have taken over a growing part of the Republican base (New York Times/CBS Poll released last week showed 45% of Republicans believed Obama was NOT born in U.S., 33% said he was born in US and 22% were not sure). Even the Republican Congress seemed to being going along with the idea, even though privately they knew damn well Obama was born in the United States. If not they would have been holding a hearing every five minutes.

 

According to that poll the Birthers have gain ground because only 57% of American (at the time the poll was taken) believed the setting President of the United States was born in America. Yeah, rasism is dead and buried in the United States.

 

Yeah the Birther crowd seems to have shut-up…

 

Birther – Joseph Farah – “We look forward to reviewing it like so many other Americans do at this late date. But it is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama’s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life."

 

Birther – Andy Martin – Now demands the release of President Obama’s transcripts and admission documents.

 

Birther – Orly Taitz – Does not believe the birth certificate; according to her “expert opinion” it should say “Nero” not “African.”

 

Birther – Donald Trump – Takes credit for putting pressure on President Obama to release birth certificate, but will he keep his promise to now release his own financial records? So far it does not sound like it. I guess if I was a “winner, not a loser,” like Mr. Trump I would not want to release my financial records. At least three bankruptcies in past 20 years is winning?

 

Well at least the Donald may shut-up for awhile at least until he thinks America has forgotten his promise.

[Totenkopf]

I'd tend to agree w/TC on this. It was a political bad move on BO's part given his shift to campaign mode. He probably should have waited awhile longer (maybe seen how the primaries shook out). Still, if it does lay the issue mostly to rest, that is good as well. There are much better reasons to go after this president than the birther issue. Given the way it got some traction/focus in the '08 primary, I guess that means that the dems/left have to root out their own racism before finding it in others, though.

 

Also, now Trump is pushing the college records issue. I wonder what this will do for his show's ratings.....

[mimartin]

I I guess that means that the dems/left have to root out their own racism before finding it in others, though.

Please show me where almost 50% of Dems/Left ever disbelieved the birth certificate released during the 2008 election? (hint they didn’t or Obama would not have gotten the Democratic nomination.

 

Also, I am not implying that Republican or the right are racist; I am implying that this birther crap would have been dead on arrival had the President been white. That is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is just a fact of racism in the country. I don’t really see how party affliction means someone is or is not a racist.

[Totenkopf]

I think that if there were a question that a white candidate was actually a european and not an American, either side of the political aisle would make hay of it. Problem is that everytime someone disagrees w/an issue from the left in this country, they are axiomatically labled racists (everything from simply NOT voting for/supporting BO's candidacy to opposition to the US's immigration non-policy). Here is but another example of this:

However, I'd also argue that as long as people are different, that (racism/bigotry) will always be a problem anyway. While I agree that party affiliation doesn't make one racist (at least as far as mainstream parties go over here), you can always count on the dem party leadership to raise the spectre of racism vs its opponents on a wide array of issues.

 

Since I never made any specific claims about % of people in a specific group, that issue is irrelevant. It's a dem side issue from '08 that has gained traction b/c of the way it's been handled since then....with people all over the spectrum wondering about it's validity. Btw, never accused you personally of making any implications, but that mentality is out there and the constant push to say x% of reps buy into this birther thing is one tactic being used to try to smear everyone on that side by association. Not complaining, just recognizing it for what it is. Don't know about you, but I've never had faith in polls in general as the sample is often too small to be truly reflective, questions are often leading and you don't know who's really being honest.

[Darth InSidious]

Now that it has been conclusively proven that Mr Obama is indeed a genital wig, I have a question: Why does the President need to have been born in the US in the first place? Short of a Mr Cornwallis running for the Definitely Not Monarchist Party, what purpose does this law actually serve, aside from excluding first generation immigrants, and Americans who are, for one reason or another, living abroad?

[Totenkopf]

I take it you mean in theory, b/c I'll agree that sometimes legal immigrants are more pationate about their new country than the natives. As to those living abroad, as long as they were born here on on some kind of sovereign US territory, so to speak, I'm pretty sure they can legally run (ie not aware of any prohibitions in that regard). Btw, can foreigners (ie non-brit/EU) become the PM of England or serve in either house of Parliament?

[mimartin]

Don't know about you, but I've never had faith in polls in general as the sample is often too small to be truly reflective, questions are often leading and you don't know who's really being honest.

 

I have great faith polls, provided the question is clear and concise, the sample size is large and random enough, then polls can be as accurate as their margin of error. That written, I do not always trust the people that administer the polls. I do however have great faith in Statistics. In other words, I trust numbers more than people.

 

Totenkopf, is correct about U.S. citizenship - link covers all

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

To be a Senator or Representative you must be a citizen. To be president, you must be a citizen, but you also must be natural-born. (next link defines that).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html

[Hallucination]

I take it you mean in theory, b/c I'll agree that sometimes legal immigrants are more pationate about their new country than the natives. As to those living abroad, as long as they were born here on on some kind of sovereign US territory, so to speak, I'm pretty sure they can legally run (ie not aware of any prohibitions in that regard). Btw, can foreigners (ie non-brit/EU) become the PM of England or serve in either house of Parliament?

According to this site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.

[purifier]

According to this site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.

 

 

So if Trump doesn't win the Presidential election here, he could go across the pond and run for the MP, if he became a British citizen. Right?

 

Lol. Somebody should notify him of this.

[Tommycat]

Huh? Where did the racist crap come from? There were people on the left talking about McCain's birth location, so if he had won, we might have had the same debate(though he was born on US soil... abroad). The whole birther thing started in the HILLARY CLINTON campaign(though it gained more traction after the election in the Republicans post election). If you want to talk racism, only 1% of black voters voted for McCain, while 99% voted for Obama.

 

I'm so sick of people screaming racism at the drop of the hat. PROVE that the birthers were motivated by race rather than a general dislike of a Democrat President.

[Sabretooth]

According to this site you don't even have to be a British citizen to run. It doesn't say anything about becoming Prime Minister, but PM's are really just MP's who lead a party, so I don't see why there would be more restrictions on them.

 

Sounds accurate enough for the Indian constitution, (which is by and large, copy/paste UK constitution). I do know though, that there was a lot of debate about Sonia Gandhi becoming PM, as she is an Italian who took Indian citizenship on marriage. While not illegal, it was deemed unethical and in the interest of not-blowing-up-the-nation, she gave the spot to a relatively cool-headed guy named Manmohan Singh.

 

So yes, apart from suffering mountains of flak from British tabloids, I think a foreigner can take over the PM post in Britain.

[mimartin]

If you want to talk racism, only 1% of black voters voted for McCain, while 99% voted for Obama.

Just how many African-American candidates has the United States nominated in its history?

 

I'm so sick of people screaming racism at the drop of the hat.

Prove where I have ever cried racism at a drop of a hat? In other words put up or shut up.

 

PROVE that the birthers were motivated by race rather than a general dislike of a Democrat President.

never wrote that race was the entire motivation.

[Totenkopf]

Just how many African-American candidates has the United States nominated in its history?

 

Still, I have great reason to doubt 99% of them would have voted for a conservative black candidate vs a white liberal, though the outcome of such a race would be interesting to see.