|
Post by archer17 on Jul 16, 2010 18:53:19 GMT -4
Yo Dead Hoosiers. And here I was thinking that 'birther' nonsense was dying down.... BTW, how's the global flu pandemic, forced vaccinations, and internment camps doing?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 16, 2010 19:46:06 GMT -4
You know, the Constitution specifically states that there shall be no religious test for public office. Therefore, a Muslim is just as able, legally, to be President as a Christian. And for heaven's sake, people claimed Kennedy would do exactly what the Pope told him to, even after both Kennedy and the Pope denied that would happen.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 16, 2010 21:00:49 GMT -4
Let's pretend for a minute that Obama really was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. So what? Is he somehow inferior because of those specific traits? How could he possibly do a worse job than a particular "real American" from Texas? Explain to me why this theory isn't based on bigotry. I kind of doubt people would make such a big deal out of his history if he was a white Christian who was hiding the fact that he was really born in Canada. I'm really starting to get sick of racists and other hateful people. Okay. I'll explain it to you. Good. It only took you 21 months. Explain to me why people never questioned the authenticity of any previous President's birth certificate until Obama. I don't think the law itself is racist because it doesn't state anything about skin colour or religion. What I think is racist is the way people didn't seem concerned about whether or not George Bush was born in the US. Or Ronald Regan, or Jimmy Carter. It was only when a black man was elected that people started digging into his past and ignoring any evidence that says he is American. Let me ask you this, Dead Hoosiers. If he could prove to you beyond a doubt that he was born in Hawaii, but admitted that he is a Muslim (note that I am not saying that is really the case), would you accept him as President?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 16, 2010 22:48:19 GMT -4
It's even less hypothetical than that. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. We know this to be true. However, since the Constitution never defines "natural-born citizen" in this case, and since the Founding Fathers had no concept of military bases outside their own country, or owning territory at all outside their own immediate vicinity, it's arguable that, by Constitutional standards, McCain is ineligible to become President. (I think it's a stupid argument, but it's still an argument.) Yet you never hear that.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 17, 2010 0:47:48 GMT -4
Apparently Michigan governor and presidential candidate George Romney (Mitt's father) faced questions about his nationality because he was born in Mexico of parents that had fled the country. Not getting past the primary kept the question from getting to far. IMO, Obama meets the constitutional qualifications for the office.
Questions about Obama's citizenship, to me, is not specifically racist, it is political. I've met several who will carry on about it for as long as you can listen whitout race becoming an issue. What it is though is a stupid political movement composed of people that don't want to play a constructive role. There is plenty to dislike about Obama without droning on about a lost argument that is without factual support. Why don't these guys pick a real issue where there is traction and they might accomplish something rather than stay as whining losers?
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Jul 17, 2010 1:05:01 GMT -4
The US constitution states that the president must be a natural born citizen. (There is another clause that presumably no longer applies, unless we have some candidates who are over 200 years old.) The term "natural born" is not defined in the constitution, but it is used in a citizenship law that was passed not long after adoption of the constitution, so that may be a good guide as to what original intent was. This citizenship law included provision for becoming a citizen by having an American parent, even if born outside of the territory of the United States, so that "natural born" citizens were people who became citizens simply by being born, without having to go through some naturalization procedure. After the American civil war, several constitutional amendments were adopted that abolished slavery and extended citizenship to the former slaves. One of these stated that anyone born in the territory of the United States is a citizen. The idea that you have to be born in US territory to be a natural born citizen, and therefore eligible to become president, seems to come from an attempt to argue that the territorial definition in this amendment, passed in the 1860s, is what the framers of the constitution, back in 1787, meant by "natural born citizen", with no regard to the language of the citizenship law passed many years before the civil war. As far as I am aware, there were three candidates who were "natural born citizens" under the one interpretation (citizens from the moment of their birth), but not under the other interpretation (born within the territory of the United States). All three were Republicans, and all three lost. (In at least one case, the candidate lost twice.) Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state; John McCain was born in Panama, and someone else (name escapes me) was born in Mexico of American missionary parents. I am not aware of any serious legal challenge against any of their candidacies. I have not heard any credible evidence that Obama fails to qualify under even the stricter standard (born in the US). But even if he had been born in Kenya, Indonesia, Planet Mars, or whatever, if his mother were an American citizen, he presumably would have no problem for that reason. Now, it is now true that non-native born citizens end up knowing more about US history and civics than the average US citizen I will cite the earlier part of my post as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Jul 17, 2010 1:07:28 GMT -4
Apparently Michigan governor and presidential candidate George Romney (Mitt's father) faced questions about his nationality because he was born in Mexico of parents that had fled the country. This would be the third case mentioned in my post, although I could not recall the name.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 17, 2010 2:12:49 GMT -4
Yo Dead Hoosiers. And here I was thinking that 'birther' nonsense was dying down.... BTW, how's the global flu pandemic, forced vaccinations, and internment camps doing? The flu scare petered out, as you know. The vaccines were, for the most part, not forced, nor did they contain a more severe form of H1N1, but it killed a maimed, as most vaccines do. The internment camps are doing great and will be open for business soon. I'm just trying to decide who'll get tossed in...illegal aliens (because a lot of people are getting fed up) or the unemployed when their benefits finally come to an end. Or maybe the birthers?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 17, 2010 2:24:34 GMT -4
Let me ask you this, Dead Hoosiers. If he could prove to you beyond a doubt that he was born in Hawaii, but admitted that he is a Muslim (note that I am not saying that is really the case), would you accept him as President? Yes, but I wouldn't like it--because he pretended to be Christian in order to get votes. I really dislike liars--and therefore, not surprisingly, I dislike most politicians. And I hate Islam almost as much as I hate Roman Catholicism. These are the biggest murdering religions. In Islam's defense, their prophet told them to do it in their "holy" book; but the RCC doesn't even have that excuse. If Obama is Muslim (and I'm pretty sure he is), he's just following the tenants of his faith that say it's okay to lie in order to gain power--then kill.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 17, 2010 4:07:39 GMT -4
I will cite the earlier part of my post as evidence. Citation certainly accepted! Yes, but I wouldn't like it--because he pretended to be Christian in order to get votes. I really dislike liars--and therefore, not surprisingly, I dislike most politicians. And I hate Islam almost as much as I hate Roman Catholicism. These are the biggest murdering religions. In Islam's defense, their prophet told them to do it in their "holy" book; but the RCC doesn't even have that excuse. If Obama is Muslim (and I'm pretty sure he is), he's just following the tenants of his faith that say it's okay to lie in order to gain power--then kill. Okay, first off, it's "tenets." If you're going to ramble bad theology, at least get your vocabulary right. Second, are you honestly trying to pretend that only Catholics and Muslims murder? Are you suggesting, possibly, that there are no Catholic martyrs past the point where Protestantism existed? (Are you not aware that, whatever Christian faith you come from, it's an offshoot of Catholicism if you go far back enough? Unless you're of an Orthodox faith, where I basically consider it mitosis.) And can you, since you're clearly such an expert, cite exactly where in the Koran it says to lie and then kill?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 17, 2010 14:06:50 GMT -4
The internment camps are doing great and will be open for business soon. I'm just trying to decide who'll get tossed in...illegal aliens (because a lot of people are getting fed up) or the unemployed when their benefits finally come to an end. Or maybe the birthers? You said the same thing about the camps five years in the Rex 84 thread. How do you define "soon" exactly?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 17, 2010 14:56:33 GMT -4
The internment camps are doing great and will be open for business soon. I'm just trying to decide who'll get tossed in... So that is why you know so much more about them than averyone else, you get to decide you is put away. I'll keep quite about this if you promise my name doesn't get on your naughty list.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 17, 2010 15:10:10 GMT -4
The vaccines were, for the most part, not forced, nor did they contain a more severe form of H1N1, but it killed a maimed, as most vaccines do. How many? I want numbers and sources.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 17, 2010 15:21:08 GMT -4
Second, are you honestly trying to pretend that only Catholics and Muslims murder? NO Are you suggesting, possibly, that there are no Catholic martyrs past the point where Protestantism existed? NO(Are you not aware that, whatever Christian faith you come from, it's an offshoot of Catholicism if you go far back enough? Unless you're of an Orthodox faith, where I basically consider it mitosis.) YOU ARE SO WRONG And can you, since you're clearly such an expert, cite exactly where in the Koran it says to lie and then kill? See my short comments in red in your post above. As with the Bible, you can't just go verse hunting through the Koran and pick verses out to prove an argument. You need to read the whole thing in order to understand what's going on. There are so many passages that support my belief that this is true that there isn't space here to list them all in context (and I'd need to include the Hadith). One example would be Koran 3:28, but you can't take it alone as proof. You might also look up the Treaty of Hudaibiya. True Christianity began at Pentecost and flourished for 3 centuries before the Roman Catholic religion came into existence. It didn't take long for the RCC to try to eliminate Christians via wholesale slaughter throughout the centuries. They (the true Christians) were/are a threat to the pope's authority. The popes couldn't have a bunch of people running around saying that priests and the mass and the sacraments weren't necessary to salvation--then they'd be out of work. There are some not contemptible researchers who believe it was the RCC that was responsible for the genesis of Islam.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jul 17, 2010 15:23:27 GMT -4
The vaccines were, for the most part, not forced, nor did they contain a more severe form of H1N1, but it killed a maimed, as most vaccines do. How many? I want numbers and sources. That information is readily available to you via search engines and there's a lot of it.
|
|