RE: Only in America (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/25/2009 8:15:01 PM)

quote:

I just don't see where this issue comes anywhere near being crucial enough to warrant doing it for the 19th or 20th. It's a very minor issue.
Less important than banning (or unbanning) liquor, for example? Not all the amendments were about important weighty issues.

And my remark about the US government being designed not to work was really an aside. It is a conclusion I have begun to come to from studying the Constitution and the workings of the US government.




DavanKael -> RE: Only in America (8/25/2009 8:38:53 PM)

I support the space program heavily.  I believe it is the next reasonable step in manifest destiny. 
As to the migrant worker angle, I believe such workers are relevant to our economy but I do not wish to do anything to appear to venerate them if they're not here legally. 
  Davan




sappatoti -> RE: Only in America (8/25/2009 8:44:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

cabal, intrigue, and corruption,
Now doesn`t that pretty much describe the present situation with the PACs and lobbyists?

On to the ideas you expressed. If having a foreign born person be Head of State was such a danger, why does no other major country have such a limitation? How is it that even Russia feels no need to make such a limitation?  It is an anachronism
.



In your opinion, it is an anachronism. Under our current Constitution, it is the law. If enough people in the US care to change the natural born requirement, the process of amending the Constitution can be started. It's neither quick nor easy, but it is possible. As pointed out earlier in the thread by Panda, there apparently is no urgent need within the citizenry of the US to have that natural born requirement amended.

As to your point about no other country having that requirement, that's not surprising. Back in the 1780s, no other country had it either. I would venture a guess that your point was deliberated at the Constitutional Convention and, based upon the compromises they reached, the Framers decided it was a necessary requirement and wrote it into the Constitution.

If you really want to know why, you will need to find some way of going back in time and sit in on those deliberations. Outside of the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers, I am not aware of the existence of any other recorded evidence or meeting minutes.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Only in America (8/25/2009 8:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I just don't see where this issue comes anywhere near being crucial enough to warrant doing it for the 19th or 20th. It's a very minor issue.
Less important than banning (or unbanning) liquor, for example? Not all the amendments were about important weighty issues.


Well, Prohibition was seen to be a foolish error, and corrected relatively quickly. But once the damage was done (in the form of a Constitutional amendment banning alcohol), the only way to undo it was to pass another amendment repealing the first one. So while the first was clearly a mistake, the second was a necessity to repair that mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

And my remark about the US government being designed not to work was really an aside. It is a conclusion I have begun to come to from studying the Constitution and the workings of the US government.



And it has a lot of merit. The fact is, our government was designed to be complicated. Our experience with British tyranny impressed upon our Founding Fathers the importance of a system of checks and balances, of a deliberative representative Congress that moved slowly enough for the people to make their wishes known to their legislators, and the importance of frequent elections to keep the legislators accountable and ensure a relatively high turnover. Obviously, some of those schemes worked out... well... less well than intended, and in fact are directly responsible for much of the dysfunction that characterizes our government today.

Bottom line is, the government was designed to work slowly and for the various branches (specifically the legislative and executive branches, and the two house of congress) to outright block each other. You could say that it was a pretty good model for a country of 13 colonies, populated by about 2 and a half million farmers, craftsmen, and storekeepers. But you could also say that model doesn't translate very efficiently to a global military and economic empire of 50 states and 300 million people. But it is what it is, and for better or worse we're stuck with it. Warts and all.




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 12:15:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Care to back that assertion with something besides a snotty opinion, Kim?



There was nothing snotty about what I stated, Rich.

Note I said bloodline, and he is part of that; admitted it on Jay Leno. I posted the link way back... when it might have mattered. You must have missed it.

As for Kittin's ass, or anyone else who has such an obvious issue with the place; not my problem.

Aren't you one of those "fend for yourselves mother 'uckers", types... you know.. the failures should all be killed? (maybe it was someone else that said that)

Kim





Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 1:38:54 AM)

quote:

Note I said bloodline, and he is part of that; admitted it on Jay Leno. I posted the link way back... when it might have mattered. You must have missed it.
Yeah I missed it...who is part of what bloodline?




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 1:44:26 AM)

Mr. Obama... the same bloodline as Bush and Co.

Kim




Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 9:25:32 AM)

Obama is related to Bush????? Now that's just plain silly.




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 9:30:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Obama is related to Bush????? Now that's just plain silly.


In the interview with Jay, he admits to knowing he is related to Cheney. Knowing that Cheney and Bush are related, I followed a link for the Bush family tree; Obama is there; if I am not mistaken, by his grandmother. (not positive)

Kim




Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 10:48:05 AM)

Some obscure connection going back 350 years. Hell go back that far and you are related to a shitload of people.Go back far enough and I am related to the King of Denmark. Like I said, its just silly.




PyrotheClown -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 10:53:25 AM)

Un pequeño paso para el hombre, un paso gigante para la humanidad




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 10:53:41 AM)

Guess I’m just not a big believer in coincidence; at least not as often as big names hit that tree.

Kim




Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 11:10:37 AM)

Oh come on,they are related through different people in their pasts. The connection between Bush and Obama has nothing to do with the connection between Cheney and Obama. You don't believe in coincidences, you prefer conspiracies I guess.
My family is descended from King Gorm the old of Denmark, and I am related to anybody who is descended from the Mayflower Howlands...it don't mean shit after a few hundred years.




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 11:16:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Oh come on,they are related through different people in their pasts. The connection between Bush and Obama has nothing to do with the connection between Cheney and Obama.


You know this?

quote:

You don't believe in coincidences,


That's true.. I have my reasons.

quote:

you prefer conspiracies I guess


Doesn't it have to be a secret to be considered conspiracy? It's not; people just prefer not to look.

I don't think they are doing anything 'the people (majority)' don't ask them to; whether they mean to or not. Another disqualifier, if I'm not mistaken.

Kim




Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 11:33:59 AM)

quote:

You know this?
Well according tothe articles I read the connection between Obama and Cheny has to do with a Hugenot woman, and the connection between Obama and Bush has to do with an English couple. I found no evidence of a connection between Bush and Cheney. As a matter of fact I am related to Bush, we are both descendants of John Howland (along with Nixon, Bogart, Roosevelt, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, Gerald Ford and Winston Churchill . Like I said, it doesn't mean shit after a few hundred years, damn near anybody who's family came to new England way back when will be related to everybody else who's family did as well...there wasn't a whole fuck of a lot of them there you know.




cpK69 -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 11:42:43 AM)

Okay.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 2:16:15 PM)

I see clearly now. You were one of the ones that was groomed to not have any polticial affiliations, so that you could look more like the common man and convince us all that it means nothing. <tongue in cheek>


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

You know this?
Well according tothe articles I read the connection between Obama and Cheny has to do with a Hugenot woman, and the connection between Obama and Bush has to do with an English couple. I found no evidence of a connection between Bush and Cheney. As a matter of fact I am related to Bush, we are both descendants of John Howland (along with Nixon, Bogart, Roosevelt, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young, Gerald Ford and Winston Churchill . Like I said, it doesn't mean shit after a few hundred years, damn near anybody who's family came to new England way back when will be related to everybody else who's family did as well...there wasn't a whole fuck of a lot of them there you know.




Arpig -> RE: Only in America (8/26/2009 8:31:00 PM)

Damn, you figured it out.....now we'll have to kill you. 




WyldHrt -> RE: Only in America (8/27/2009 12:29:06 AM)

quote:

OK sappatoti, nobody is disputing that those are the rules, they are asking if they should be let to stand. Where do you stand, should naturalized citizens be eligible for the Presidency or not?

On that note, I'm gonna duck out. We've already done this one, Arpig [8D]




TheHeretic -> RE: Only in America (8/27/2009 8:19:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

Aren't you one of those "fend for yourselves mother 'uckers", types... you know.. the failures should all be killed? (maybe it was someone else that said that)

Kim



    Only if you are coming from the RML school of reading my posts, and assigning the nastiest posible interpretation, or, just making shit up, and insisting I said it. 

Is that how you interpret the notion that self-esteem is something earned, rather than something given?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625