quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Oh, you mean, like, he had a crazy, hate-filled racist preacher named Jeremiah Wright?

No, unfortunately that one was true.

Or that he was an inexperienced junior senator lacking any kind of executive experience?

No, so sorry - that was true as well.

In short, I think your real problem is facing facts and reality that are at odds with your belief system, and not with me at all
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I seem to recall you posting swathes on stuff about Obama, using dubious websites as links, right around election time. If that makes me delusional, then I am fine with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Oh, you mean, like, he had a crazy, hate-filled racist preacher named Jeremiah Wright?

No, unfortunately that one was true.

Or that he was an inexperienced junior senator lacking any kind of executive experience?

No, so sorry - that was true as well.

In short, I think your real problem is facing facts and reality that are at odds with your belief system, and not with me at all
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I seem to recall you posting swathes on stuff about Obama, using dubious websites as links, right around election time. If that makes me delusional, then I am fine with it.

Or that his father never was a U.S. Citizen of any type and, therefore, Obama is in fact a userper because he cannot be a "natural born U.S. Citizen" as defined by four different legacy U.S. Supreme Court rulings and required by the U.S. Constitution.

No, so sorry - that was and still is true as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I'll use those insights elsewhere, Firm, unless you demand attribution I think that's quite insightful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Sorry - are you saying that those on the left are better educated than those on the right, or saying that good spelling and grammar indicate a psychopathology towards tyranny, or both, or neither?

E

I'm pointing out the difference between a true grass roots movement, and astro-turfed, elistist lead movements.

Firm

There will be differences between movements according to their age, size and the degree of sophistication I would argue - sophistication coming with age and size since the longer a movement exists the more likely it is that capable leaders and representatives will emerge, and the larger a movement is the more likely it is to include people who are capable. I dont think its related to grass roots, elitist, right or left factors.

This "tea party" is pretty new - I dont think its had the time yet to become as sophisticated as its perceived opponents. Its also not a party as such nor even a unified group from what I can see, but rather individuals and smaller groups expressing a range of dissatisfactions and disaffections.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The concept of a Federation of States isn't so difficult to grasp.

See here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Do you find infinite wisdom a joy? Or is it a terrible burden?
nah it comes natural
If only most of the world didn't disagree with you.
When one is in the upper 1% I will have you know that is a compliment might want to try again.
OK, what "apparently correct concept of confederation" did I miss and where did I state it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The members on the left side of the political equation who spend their time denigrating and belittling the form of the members of the TEA parties instead of the substance, show themselves to be elitists more concerned about telling people what to believe, and less than leaders interested in the democratic ideals of the common man they have always claimed to represent.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Well its easier to make a mistake typing, you would think writing out a great big sign, you  would be more attentive to detail, but yes neither party, gender or religion or IQ level or anything else has the market on fucking up. To pretend otherwise is just dumb

I would have said the same thing about a tattoo, but there was a thread on misspellings that was great.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Give it up, rule. You'll take them seriously at the polls. By their own actions.

That may be true, but I seriously doubt it.

What is the likely scenario is that the teabaggers are going to fracture the Republican Party and give an open door to Democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The members on the left side of the political equation who spend their time denigrating and belittling the form of the members of the TEA parties instead of the substance, show themselves to be elitists more concerned about telling people what to believe, and less than leaders interested in the democratic ideals of the common man they have always claimed to represent.

Firm

What exactly is the substance?

Ask any ten of the teabaggers what they are protesting and you will get ten different answers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Do you find infinite wisdom a joy? Or is it a terrible burden?
nah it comes natural
If only most of the world didn't disagree with you.
When one is in the upper 1% I will have you know that is a compliment might want to try again.
OK, what "apparently correct concept of confederation" did I miss and where did I state it?

Well you see you did not state it.
I did.
You see that is the relationship the states have with each other and the federal government.
Second bill is in the mail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The concept of a Federation of States isn't so difficult to grasp.

See here.

Not for me anyway.

Apparently the "correct" concept of confederation as this country was designed to operate completely escaped you.

Bills in the mail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Thadius,

Not that the actual law matters to these people, but here (from Wiki):

Acquisition of citizenship

There are various ways a person can acquire United States citizenship, either at birth or later on in life.

Birth within the United States

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment, although it has generally been assumed that they are. A birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:

*Born in the United States
*Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
*Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
*Has parents that are in the United States for business

Through birth abroad to two United States citizens

A child is automatically granted citizenship in the following cases:

*Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
*At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.
[INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and please one of whom has had a residence." The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."]

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.

Through birth abroad to one United States citizen

A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

*One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
*The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child's birth
*A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.

A person's record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual's birth.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:

*One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
*The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
*A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the word is spelled correctly