RE: New "Birther" Controversy

RE: New "Birther" Controversy (Full Version)

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

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 2:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR DaddySatyr, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are asking the extreme right NOT to be hypocritical and investigate Rubio's birth? I deleted out your generalized attack and chose to answer the direct question. Thank you for asking for clarification, rather than making slanderous assumptions. That is *exactly* what I am calling for. Should this man be named to a campaign as V.P. candidate, he will have undergone almost no vetting (compared to the tops of the tickets) and (IMO) would fly in the spirit of the eligibility requirement to hold the office to which he would aspire. Peace and comfort, Michael

jlf1961 -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 2:39:05 PM)
President presented his birth certificate during the primaries, during the election and twice AFTER the election, added to that a REPUBLICAN governor of Hawaii visually VERIFIED the damn thing existed, what more do you want, the voice of god?

Winterapple -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 2:57:49 PM)
FR Obama and Rubio are both natural born citizens. Both are eligible to be president and run for the presidency. Where their parents were born is irrelevant. Does the name Andrew Jackson ring a bell? The thought processes of a birther aren't that different from believing in Bigfoot. Except you can make a more convincing argument for the existence Bigfoot.

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 3:35:48 PM)
Michael, if Rubio was born in the states, he is a natural born citizen. I guess you could even say he was an "Anchor Baby".[8D] (boy wouldn't that go over like a turd in the punchbowl for those on the Far Right) We have had presidents before that were born to immigrant parents so there is no problem there. You might want to go look at the history books again regarding the Bautista regime. The bastage was pretty despotic and very damn corrupt.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 4:44:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess FR DaddySatyr, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are asking the extreme right NOT to be hypocritical and investigate Rubio's birth? I deleted out your generalized attack and chose to answer the direct question. Thank you for asking for clarification, rather than making slanderous assumptions. That is *exactly* what I am calling for. Should this man be named to a campaign as V.P. candidate, he will have undergone almost no vetting (compared to the tops of the tickets) and (IMO) would fly in the spirit of the eligibility requirement to hold the office to which he would aspire. Peace and comfort, Michael Yes, well I was being sarcastic. You'll be waiting a long time if you are asking the GOP not to be hypocritical....good luck with that....

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 4:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You might want to go look at the history books again regarding the Bautista regime. The bastage was pretty despotic and very damn corrupt. Ahhhhh But, "we" were making money there so, all was well. Don't think for a moment that the US wasn't supporting Bautista. In light of those two facts, please notice how I worded it: "...and to our way of thinking...". I was not making the case that the Rubios left a paradise; just our government's view of the situation vís-á-vís immigration status. and since someone used the word I abhor; while I don't like "visiting the sins of the father..." should "anchor babies" (which doesn't really fit because by all accounts, they were in this country 12 years before he was born) truly be considered "natural born"? Again; in view of the spirit of the eligibility clause, I think it's something that warrents, at least, some thought and I'd like the truth to be brought forth. Peace and comfort, Michael

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 5:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You might want to go look at the history books again regarding the Bautista regime. The bastage was pretty despotic and very damn corrupt. Ahhhhh But, "we" were making money there so, all was well. Don't think for a moment that the US wasn't supporting Bautista. In light of those two facts, please notice how I worded it: "...and to our way of thinking...". I was not making the case that the Rubios left a paradise; just our government's view of the situation vís-á-vís immigration status. and since someone used the word I abhor; while I don't like "visiting the sins of the father..." should "anchor babies" (which doesn't really fit because by all accounts, they were in this country 12 years before he was born) truly be considered "natural born"? Again; in view of the spirit of the eligibility clause, I think it's something that warrents, at least, some thought and I'd like the truth to be brought forth. Peace and comfort, Michael "Anchor Baby" was a bit of a snark at those on the fringe Right. As for Bautista being a despot, yes, 'businessmen' in the US were making a lot of money from him. We made a lot of money off the Shah as well. Both were despots.

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam "Anchor Baby" was a bit of a snark at those on the fringe Right. As for Bautista being a despot, yes, 'businessmen' in the US were making a lot of money from him. We made a lot of money off the Shah as well. Both were despots. Which leads into my next point ... just to illustrate the importance (to me) of the spirit of the eligibility clause, imagine that the Rubio family is named Khalil and hails from Yemin or Lebanon or Syria (even in 1956, there was no more "Palestine"). The reason the clause was included was to try (they failed by way of being vague) to make sure that only people loyal to America, with no other ties or allegiences would sit in the oval office. Honestly, I thought Kissinger and Brzezinski (I hope I spelled it right) were a bit too far up the chain of succession for comfort but, I was a bit too young to understand how to make my opinion known. Peace and comfort, Michael

dcnovice -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:07:04 PM)
quote: Honestly, I thought Kissinger and Brzezinski (I hope I spelled it right) were a bit too far up the chain of succession for comfort but, I was a bit too young to understand how to make my opinion known. I'm curious: What about them discomforted you? Their views or their being born in other countries? Or something else?

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:09:06 PM)
The fact that they were born in foreign countries, most particularly Brzezinski who was Russian, at a time when were still embroiled in the Cold War. True enough, trust is part of building bridges but it comes dear from me, when I'm thinking of the well-being of my country. ETA: I'm not saying it's likely that we'd get down to the number 4 in the order of succession but, given the amount of tragedies for which people *don't* plan, it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that a Secretary of State could someday wind up President. ETAA: See how young I was? I thought Zbig was a SoS. He wasn't. Damn my memory sucks I retract my damnation of that damned Russkie LOL Peace and comfort, Michael

dcnovice -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:17:18 PM)
I think Brzezinski was Polish. Weren't he and Kissinger both pretty fierce Cold Warriors? Do you really thing foreign birth necessarily precludes serving the US loyally? Christian Heurich, an immigrant businessman here in DC (where he was the city's largest private employer, for what that's worth), was once asked about his loyalties, and I think he answered rather deftly and beautifully. "Germany," he said, "is my mother, but America is my bride."

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The fact that they were born in foreign countries, most particularly Brzezinski who was Russian, at a time when were still embroiled in the Cold War. True enough, trust is part of building bridges but it comes dear from me, when I'm thinking of the well-being of my country. ETA: I'm not saying it's likely that we'd get down to the number 4 in the order of succession but, given the amount of tragedies for which people *don't* plan, it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that a Secretary of State could someday wind up President. Peace and comfort, Michael You're making a good point about that. I've also wondered why congressmen don't have to be a natural born citizen If a foreign born congressman gets elected, and then is selected as speaker of the house do they forfeit their position in the succession? For Instance, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba. If she was selected speaker of the house, that could cause problems as she would be second in line after the Veep.

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:24:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice I think Brzezinski was Polish. Weren't he and Kissinger both pretty fierce Cold Warriors? Do you really thing foreign birth necessarily precludes serving the US loyally? Christian Heurich, an immigrant businessman here in DC (where he was the city's largest private employer, for what that's worth), was once asked about his loyalties, and I think he answered rather deftly and beautifully. "Germany," he said, "is my mother, but America is my bride." Words in red: I think that's a nice sentiment but, I don't think that's what the founders had in mind and please re-visit my statement about "trust" Bolded words: That's a very nice, poetic story and I'm sure he meant it but, it doesn't matter to me (and he's not in the line of succession). I think we need to guard, fiercely, our highest office. In the interest of full disclosure: I lean more toward isolationism than buying into the globalist ideal. Peace and comfort, Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The fact that they were born in foreign countries, most particularly Brzezinski who was Russian, at a time when were still embroiled in the Cold War. True enough, trust is part of building bridges but it comes dear from me, when I'm thinking of the well-being of my country. ETA: I'm not saying it's likely that we'd get down to the number 4 in the order of succession but, given the amount of tragedies for which people *don't* plan, it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that a Secretary of State could someday wind up President. Peace and comfort, Michael You're making a good point about that. I've also wondered why congressmen don't have to be a natural born citizen If a foreign born congressman gets elected, and then is selected as speaker of the house do they forfeit their position in the succession? For Instance, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba. If she was selected speaker of the house, that could cause problems as she would be second in line after the Veep. I'm not sure that "forfeit" is even the right word. I believe the eligibility clause pre-cludes (emphasis intentional; not a typo) their consideration. That would rest well if my contention about Rubio is correct but... Why would we put ourselves in that position? God forbid *any* president dies while in office, do we want a smooth transition or questions, accusations, and choices made out of fear or ignorance of direction? ETA: In my newest video blog (not yet posted), I talk about this, a bit. I don't care which party is in office (because it damned well won't be mine for a while), I care about what's best for the country, no matter who's in office. For people to assume that I wish evil on the current POTUS is silly. I didn't vote for him and I didn't want him to win but, when he was declared winner, my first thought was: "Let's hope he can do what he's claimed he intends to do" and I *meant* it. My concern will always be for country, before any particular party affiliation. Peace and comfort, Michael

Winterapple -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 6:57:30 PM)
The native born thing was thrown in to keep Alexander Hamilton from being president. Or largely was as any number of historians and learned people(like Gore Vidal) will attest. It was the only thing that could have kept that wily guy from taking the oath. Brzezinski is or was Polish. He's now a Polish American and a very impressive man. You must not know much about his politics or Polish attitudes towards Russia or the Soviet Union. Not big fans. The whole Iron Curtain thing wasn't popular with the people forced behind it. Brzezinski was a Cold Warrior and had no pro Russian or Soviet sympathies. Read up on his thoughts on the Russian Afghan war. I don't think someone who was born in another country as opposed to a American territory like McCain was in the Panama Canal zone could be speaker of the House and in the line if succession. Kissinger was Secretary of State but I don't think he could have been President. Conviently there's a long list of people. It's insulting, I think to question the loyalty of the children of immagrants. They seem actually to be some of the was appreciative of citizens having firsthand accounts many times of tyranny. Of course distrust of foreigners even those who are as much an American as you are has a long nasty history in the US. Mid nineteenth century or thereabouts when the dirty Irish came pouring in, then the Italians both inconveniently largely Catholic(so good WASPS know who they were really loyal to) and then the Eastern Europeans and Russians fleeing pograms. No need to even bring up the Chinese. At least Italian men and their sons could vote. Cold War paranoia cranked this fear of "outsiders" up in all sorts of fun ways. Anyone not several generations in and from hardy Northern European preferably Protestant stock is questionable. That this bigotry and paranoia is at the root of great deal of hatred of Obama is obvious. The nineteenth century is apparently not entirely over in some quarters.

BitaTruble -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 8:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam If a foreign born congressman gets elected, and then is selected as speaker of the house do they forfeit their position in the succession? Yes. quote: For Instance, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen was born in Cuba. If she was selected speaker of the house, that could cause problems as she would be second in line after the Veep. No problems. She would just be skipped over and it would go to the next in line.

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 8:01:14 PM)
ty Bita

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 8:12:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam ty Bita My answer was insufficient?

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 8:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam ty Bita My answer was insufficient? No, it's good to see confirmation from multiple sources.

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/11/2012 8:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: My answer was insufficient? No, it's good to see confirmation from multiple sources. Okay, let me be more direct because while I guess I did type it kind of rhetorically, I'm curious as to what your answer might be: quote: ORIGINAL: Daddysatyr I'm not sure that "forfeit" is even the right word. I believe the eligibility clause pre-cludes (emphasis intentional; not a typo) their consideration. That would rest well if my contention about Rubio is correct but... Why would we put ourselves in that position? God forbid *any* president dies while in office, do we want a smooth transition or questions, accusations, and choices made out of fear or ignorance of direction? Peace and comfort, Michael

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125