Is Obama a Natural Born US Citizen?

[Bronco70]

What a bunch of moops. The poll was a joke.

I figured that, based on the choices... Yet I let myself get pulled into an actual discussion on an issue that is relevant. I feel like such a moop.

I apologize, Marcus. I'm ashamed.

 

[Agoxlea]

You have the diction and obvious intelligence of a democrat with the topic of a republican. I are confused.

<tone = way less attacking than it seems>
You're usually really civil in making your points and I appreciate that, but you hide behind the label of moderate or independent while having a stronger bias than you claim. I think a lot of moderates, even those with right leanings should be happier with the POTUS than strict dems or repubs would be, but I don't believe that is the case for you. You say you hate the two party system and the divide, but there has been a lot of compromise lately which is why both sides are so upset. I think you are hoping for compromise, but only if that compromise turns out to be everything you want. I'm aware this partly fits in the other thread, but was replying to your comment here. Again no hard feelings, you're one of my favorite posters that I usually disagree with.
</tone>

Example: the previous demeaning comment.

hes no good citizen. Hes burn in Kenha. A muslem wit a dep seded hatred for white people. A comunist nazi who hats amerika. dats y i gonna vot fer palin or romney in de nex elektion.

Let's be real anyone fitting this stereotype would not vote for Romney. To people that think like this the fact that Romney is LDS is as bad as if he were "muslem" or an athiest to them. Fortunately I think this is a smaller group of people than it seems, sensationalism is just newsworthy.

----------------------------

I think Obama loves this birther stuff and it is part of his reelection strategy. He is hoping the Republican nominee is a birther and when it comes down to it he will pull out the full birth certificate and humiliate his opponent. Maybe this is Obama's personal strategy, but I think someone in his camp thinking about reelection had to have this thought. He might be opportunistically embracing this diversion to get the GOP focused on something unimportant and then completely undermine them in the election. Whether you like him or not you have to admit that is a crafty move if that is how it plays out.

 

[LogGrad98]

<tone = way less attacking than it seems>
You're usually really civil in making your points and I appreciate that, but you hide behind the label of moderate or independent while having a stronger bias than you claim. I think a lot of moderates, even those with right leanings should be happier with the POTUS than strict dems or repubs would be, but I don't believe that is the case for you. You say you hate the two party system and the divide, but there has been a lot of compromise lately which is why both sides are so upset. I think you are hoping for compromise, but only if that compromise turns out to be everything you want. I'm aware this partly fits in the other thread, but was replying to your comment here. Again no hard feelings, you're one of my favorite posters that I usually disagree with.
</tone>

Actually, I am Newton's third law of motion. I am the equal and opposite reaction (ok sometimes greater-than and opposite). The dems seem to always be the ones to push harder their agenda and sound-bites, so I push back. They also seem the least likely to admit to any failings. That is just fuel to the fire. To claim infallibility (even by inference) and then to DEFEND that claim no matter the evidence is just too good to pass up. To their defense, I think repubs tend to show false humility in discussions such as this, which is why so many seem to be moderates and so they draw less fire. Trust me, I pushed back just as hard on Milsapa till I realized the role she was playing so now I just enjoy the show there and sometimes tag along.

But if you go to the "Show me yours" thread I say I have right leanings there, so that is no surprise. Largely because of the insanity of the left and their attitude of infallibility. In my experience with republicans I know in my personal circle (and democrats too) the republicans seem more open to discourse, if in the end somewhat more devious, while the dems take the stance of "we are right...la la la can't hear you...we are right....la la la" (obviously hyperbolic). It is the latter that grinds my gears more than anything, so I push back against that.

Plus this is a message board. We have some pretty good topics of conversation, but in the end it is a collection of soundbites. Point and counterpoint and occasionally some in-depth stuff that really might mean something along with lots of bravado and posturing. After all, it is anonymous, so it is easy to be what you want to be, to play a character if you will, rather than have real discussions.

Although I enjoy our banter and discussions of this nature about a wide range of topics, I take everything with a grain of salt. Even what I say (maybe even especially). =)

If you would like to have a more in-depth political discussion, and are in the Reno area, give me a call (PM me I will give you the number) and we can have lunch or go out for dinner or something, or you can come over and I can invite my political discussion group (otherwise known as chess partners and poker buddies) who represent a pretty diverse array of opinions and knowledge on the subject. That would be a great discussion.

But this is, for all of us, more entertainment than insightful philosophical discourse.





(Also you do realize I was just throwing back at Thriller what he was implying, right? In that little post he showed his contempt for republican intelligence (notice he only mentioned republican candidates?), and I just turned the tables. Otherwise known as banter.)

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Man, LG98 is beating Kicky down like a rented mule. I hope it continues as I have just put some popcorn in the microwave.

LG, I would have repped every single one of your posts in this thread but alas, it says I must spread some love around.

 

[Archie Moses]

Where's the poll option for "this is the stupidest 'controversy' in presidential politics that I've seen in my lifetime"?

This.

 

[sirkickyass]

I bow before your obvious intellectual superiority and accept your single-dimensional examples as absolute and total explanation of a multi-faceted and highly complex issue.

Or you could invest even a modium of effort and explain why my examples were inapplicable to your argument. But you didn't.

Very persuasive.

Oh I also feel bad for you that you cannot imagine what it is like to feel part of a community such that you cannot even fathom for one moment what it means to understand what makes a group of people "tick".

I do not labor under the illusion that a large and diverse society so universally shares values, motivations, and experiences that they have a common method by which they "tick." That we live in a society that has in many ways been defined by long internal culture clashes (north-south, colonist-colonized, masters-slaves, etc.) makes the claim particularly dubious.

To wit: You and I are both American. I have little faith that you understand what makes me "tick".

Or that you have never had the experience of trying to understand a people foreign to yourself, and come to the realization of the deep significance of another cultural heritage with which you are not familiar.

You've misunderstood entirely. That's the world I constantly live in. I think of almost everyone else as a varying degree of stranger. Even those to whom we are very close can't possibly understand all of our motivations and complex desires in a totally realized way.

No matter what you put out there, nothing, no scholarly work, can ever take the place of living and growing up in a particular place, region, or country. It cannot give you the same loyalty, understanding, and emotional connection to the people or the place. I could live in germany the rest of my life and never really fully understand the deep cultural impact the second world war had on those people (for one simple example), and the influence it exerts even today. I can read about it. Study it. Observe it. But I cannot really ever live it the way they do.

Because obviously all Germans have experience WWII and its aftermath in the same way. If Eastern and Western Germans were exposed to very different cultural norms and experiences it would obviously be impossible for them to swear allegiance to the same governmental entity. Obviously all Germans regardless of region or date of birth have experienced that singular event the same way and that's what binds them together as a people. Those alive from 1939-1945 have had exactly the same cultural experience as those born in the 1960s and exactly the same cultural experience as those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's why all Germans obviously have a deep and abiding understanding of all other Germans.

What a devastating point you've made. I am truly humbled.

The same applies, imo, to understanding a culture. Unless you are part of it and have stock in the history and the events that defined that culture, where it has some influence on your life beyond simply the job you have and the schooling you have received, you cannot really know what it is like to be part of that culture.

And you have taken that conclusion to its logical extreme, to exclude even those who are born outside the country but spend functionally their entire lives here as well as cast doubt on those who are born here but spend lengthy periods of time during their formative years overseas.

Earlier I asked you about a number of edge cases to test your opinion. You took a total pass on all of them so I'm going to ask again with names attached or highly specific scenarios. Do you believe the following people should be eligible to be President:

1. Lisa Murkowski
2. Tim Duncan
3. A person born in America that spends the first 18 years of their life living in American embassies overseas

I do not think it is a stretch to want the person who leads my country to have that type of cultural connection. I feel bad for you if you cannot understand that, for all your super-advanced learning.

This, of course, is the exact line of thinking that leads to voting along racial and class lines in stratified societies. It is exclusionary and essentialist by nature and the opposite of the ideals of open and free societies in which all men are nominally created equal.

To adopt your rhetoric: I feel bad for you that you are so afraid of the other that you need an elected leader to be as close to you personally as possible in order to feel comfortable.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think the selection criteria for presidential candidates as outlined are just right. No need to mess with them. Anyone who fits that criteria is fine to apply. Believe it or not, in America we are a huge conglomerate of mixed heritages that have blended into a unique culture, so when I say I am happy with anyone that fits that one criteria, it can be someone of literally any cultural heritage in the world, but someone who understands America (in general terms of course, if you can't see what that means, or if it means nothing to you, then I can't help you see it). So if a muslim guy whose grandparents immigrated here from china and whose mother is from kenya wants to be president, I am all for him running. How exactly is that person "as close to me as possible"?

I am also glad you are so open-minded that you would be fine with Osama Bin Laden as president, as long as he got elected, since you can feel comfortable with literally anyone in that chair apparently.




So, facetiousness aside, would you open up the election to anyone, worldwide, who would want to run for President of America? Do you have any stipulations you want to see in a presidential candidate? Why or why not?

Have you ever felt like part of a community or a group that was not based purely in logic and university study? If so why did you feel like part of the group? Was it important to you in any way?

Do you feel anything when you sing the national anthem or any other patriotic song? Would it change the way you felt about that if you knew that we accepted a random businessman from (pick a random country) into the election who had never lived here who was now president-elect? What about if you didn't vote for him? Does it in any way matter to you that you are an American? Does that even mean anything to you or is it just a bunch of people who happen to live in the same general part of the world?


From your answers so far, you have totally dismissed that culture and community and nationality mean anything beyond the current geographical location of residence. You seem to be fine with anyone as president as long as they managed to get elected.

I would be willing to bet that, not just the majority of Americans, but the majority of people in the world would disagree with you.

 

[Nate505]

Please explain this one. Can you be a US citizen if you were born on a military base located in Germany? If this is true, I had no idea.

I was, and yes I am. Military bases are considered US soil. That being said, both my parents are US citizens and when that is the case citizenship is a done deal and I would wager would qualify as a "natural" citizen if it ever came to a Supreme Court ruling.

 

[PearlWatson]

Do you have any stipulations you want to see in a presidential candidate?

I just have a few stipulations:

Someone who knows how many states are in the union.
Someone who has a wife/husband who is proud of their country.
Someone who doesn't bow to foreign leaders.
Someone who won't attack the private sector.
Someone who doesn't flipflop every two seconds.
Someone who has a sane energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy.
Someone with leadership skills.
Someone with more interest in serving the citizens of the country than playing golf, or vacationing.
Someone who didn't attend Rev Wright's political rantings for 20 years.
Someone with respect for the military.
Someone who wasn't friends with domestic terrorists.
Someone who didn't fool around with interns.
Someone with a sense of humor.
Someone who isn't a lawyer.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I just have a few stipulations:

Someone who knows how many states are in the union.
Someone who has a wife/husband who is proud of their country.
Someone who doesn't bow to foreign leaders.
Someone who won't attack the private sector.
Someone who doesn't flipflop every two seconds.
Someone who has a sane energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy.
Someone with leadership skills.
Someone with more interest in serving the citizens of the country than playing golf, or vacationing.
Someone who didn't attend Rev Wright's political rantings for 20 years.
Someone with respect for the military.
Someone who wasn't friends with domestic terrorists.
Someone who didn't fool around with interns.
Someone with a sense of humor.
Someone who isn't a lawyer.

Soooooo your answer is Mother Teresa? Ah dammit, she bows to foreign leaders. Nevermind.

 

[Chad Feldheimer]

Someone who isn't a lawyer.

Following decent presidents were lawyers:
John Adams
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
Jackson
Abe Lincoln
FDR

and about 70% of the presidents we have had were lawyers at one time or another?

 

[LogGrad98]

I never voted for John Adams personally. I disagreed with his stance on horse **** in the streets.