Except Obama was born in the US.
2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
Interesting... do you have any evidence to support this theory that Obama is not a Citizen?
Also, you do understand what disqualifying "every piece of legislation he's signed into law" would actually do to the country, right?
Here's a hint:
Oh, and how exactly did "the liberals" play the race card exactly? And how would that be applicable to Canadian Ted?
And how is that? Perhaps you can cite the specific statute which says Cruz is a natural born citizen? You can't because there isn't one. Even if the publishers mistake you cited on Obama's book cover wasn't a mistake and was truthful, why is it Obama wasn't qualified to be POTUS but Cruz is? If you accept as truth the demonstrably false Birther claim that Obama wasn't born in the US and therefore not constitutionally qualified to become POTUS, how can you rationalize the fact that Cruz wasn't born in the United States but yet he is constitutionally qualified to be POTUS? Are you implying the laws which apply to blacks don't apply to whites or white Hispanics?
That really wasn't the issue. The issue is where an individual is born. And Canadian Ted clearly was born in Canada and held Canadian citizenship as recently as last year...oops.
Obama really was born in the US of an American mother and an alien father and has always been an American citizen.
Kittamaru said:
Of course he doesn't; that's not his point.
See, Republicans and the so-called "independents" who willingly parrot their talking points aren't actually engaging in good-faith discussion. This is especially true when it comes to the racist conspiracy theories so many of them advocate.
The thing is that the question of being a natural-born citizen for the purposes of the presidency, while never specifically resolved, was never this complicated. The way they taught it when I was in school was pretty simple: If you were born to an American mother on sovereign American soil, there was no question that you were a natural born citizen. This definition did include a curious question―the difference between, say, being born at the hospital in Okinawa or on the actual military base―but has generally never been tested. John McCain, on the other hand, is a natural-born American citizen by statutory declaration after the fact.
But look at where this racist Birther nonsense is at. We've even heard how the birth announcements in the local newspaper were part of the conspiracy to ... to ... er ... ah ... huh?
If Obama's father was white and, say, English, the question would never have arisen.
In the end, the racists have nothing, so this is pretty much what it comes to: Anything to disqualify Obama.
By the standard I was taught, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president. To the other, that standard isn't definitive, and we might actually see it tested. By another standard, the phrase has been defined over time as meaning one who does not require naturalization; in this case, Cruz is eligible.
Meanwhile, a couple notes from a Birther episode worth recalling here:
• In 2011 or so, George Stephanopolous interviewed Michele Bachmann; their discussion included her support of the Birther conspiracy theory. Stephanopolous showed her a Certification of Live Birth, explained why it was legal and binding, and asked her directly if this resolved the controversy. Bachmann acknowledged that it did, and then blamed Obama for waiting so long to present the document. It was, however, the one we got from him originally, the one we had the whole time.
(1) Facts and evidence were never part of their argument.
(2) That's not important, anyway.
(2) That's not important, anyway.
When we look at how far these people took it, rejecting the U.S. Constitution itself in order to make their case, it never really did make sense. The whole thing really was a temper tantrum, a neurotic spasm of denial over the injustice of America electing its first black president, and these people will say anything in order to erase that sin from their minds. Whatever it takes, as long as they get to believe the first black president really wasn't president.
And at this point, that's all people like our neighbor have left. Racist embitterment is a dreadful fashion on anyone.
But the point isn't to actually provide evidence, but, rather, to comfort themselves because, you know, the black guy in the White House really shouldn't be there, and look at how magnanimous they're being not holding an armed revolution against our hateful, anti-white, anti-American, Jewish-Nazi-Muslim-Communist-Hollywood conspiracy to destroy Christ and Freedom.
In other words, extreme petulance is the point.
As with other bullies, they are best ignored unless they demonstrate a clear and present danger.
That wasn't what the "conservatives" were claiming to have read when Obama's status was in question.cowboy said:
Let's see if the liberals play the race card against Cruz as the conservatives did against Obama.cowboy said:
If they post pictures of Cruz looking like someone of his race, for example, as the bigots do with Obama (see post 58), instead of someone sharing his job and political stances and rhetorical style (see post 41).
Or if they carry around big placards depicting Cruz in stereotypical ethnic clothing, with a big spangly sombrero and a handlebar moustache, taking a siesta. Or with a wet back and calves the size of cantaloupes, lugging bales of marijuana across the border. Or dressed as Hollywood dresses the Cuban refugees and capitalists in (say) "Scarface", with appropriate 2nd Amendment weaponry and stacks of laundered campaign/cocaine cash. Or dressed as the libertarian who shared Cruz's US "race" was dressed in Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, pronouncing the famous libertarian line that would fit so well with Cruz's rhetoric:
"Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!"
I'm betting no, they won't. Because that kind of card playing is a specialty of one political faction, in the US, and not something "both sides" do.
Canadian Ted signs up for Obamacare!
Who would have thunk it? Canadian Ted for all his rhetoric against Obamacare has signed up for Obamacare. Canadian Ted almost caused 2 government debt defaults and did cause a government shut down all in order to repeal Obamacare, has signed up for Obamacare healthcare coverage for both he and his family.
In this interview, Canadian Ted basically said he would accept the government subsidies too. Being a member of congress Canadian Ted gets subsidies the average Obamacare recipient doesn't receive. Subsequently, Canadian Ted's office has said he wouldn't accept the government subsidies. But initially, he signed up for them. One would think Canadian Ted would have the courage of his convictions. But I guess not. For Canadian Ted, its great when he benefits and the other guy suffers from his malfeasance. But God forbid Canadian Ted should ever suffer from his malfeasance.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ted-cruz-obamacare/index.html
Who would have thunk it? Canadian Ted for all his rhetoric against Obamacare has signed up for Obamacare. Canadian Ted almost caused 2 government debt defaults and did cause a government shut down all in order to repeal Obamacare, has signed up for Obamacare healthcare coverage for both he and his family.
In this interview, Canadian Ted basically said he would accept the government subsidies too. Being a member of congress Canadian Ted gets subsidies the average Obamacare recipient doesn't receive. Subsequently, Canadian Ted's office has said he wouldn't accept the government subsidies. But initially, he signed up for them. One would think Canadian Ted would have the courage of his convictions. But I guess not. For Canadian Ted, its great when he benefits and the other guy suffers from his malfeasance. But God forbid Canadian Ted should ever suffer from his malfeasance.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ted-cruz-obamacare/index.html
The Question of the Day ...
... Why does Ted Cruz's 2016 campaign logo feature a burning (flaming?) American flag and look like the Al Jazeera marque?
Meanwhile, the Ted Cruz Show is underway, and we'll just skip the analysis in order to shamelessly self-promote a useless, freehosted blog because anything else would be trolling you all by requiring more words:
And there you can read about Sen. Cornyn's refusal to endorse the Texas junior, as well as learn about Ted Cruz's philosophy on the philosophy of country music, which is apparently philosophically superior to philosophical rock and roll ... says the guy who just themed a political speech after John Lennon. Oh, right, there's also the bit where Rand Paul sounds off on mandatory attendance at Liberty University, and also the part where Donald Trump raises the Birther klaxon.
But that doesn't include the DeadState bit about the Twitter retort. Oh, well. I'll skip the trolling part where I explain what that means, and just post a link to my own blog later. (Meanwhile, y'all are expected to know what I'm talking about. So hurry the hell up and inform yourselves so I don't have to troll you with information.)
____________________
Notes:
B.D. "The Ted Cruz Show (Pilot―The Flaming Flag)". This Is. 24 March 2015. BDThisIs.WordPress.com. 24 March 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-186
... Why does Ted Cruz's 2016 campaign logo feature a burning (flaming?) American flag and look like the Al Jazeera marque?
Meanwhile, the Ted Cruz Show is underway, and we'll just skip the analysis in order to shamelessly self-promote a useless, freehosted blog because anything else would be trolling you all by requiring more words:
And there you can read about Sen. Cornyn's refusal to endorse the Texas junior, as well as learn about Ted Cruz's philosophy on the philosophy of country music, which is apparently philosophically superior to philosophical rock and roll ... says the guy who just themed a political speech after John Lennon. Oh, right, there's also the bit where Rand Paul sounds off on mandatory attendance at Liberty University, and also the part where Donald Trump raises the Birther klaxon.
But that doesn't include the DeadState bit about the Twitter retort. Oh, well. I'll skip the trolling part where I explain what that means, and just post a link to my own blog later. (Meanwhile, y'all are expected to know what I'm talking about. So hurry the hell up and inform yourselves so I don't have to troll you with information.)
____________________
Notes:
B.D. "The Ted Cruz Show (Pilot―The Flaming Flag)". This Is. 24 March 2015. BDThisIs.WordPress.com. 24 March 2015. http://wp.me/pUgG0-186
um thats not an impeachable offense. nice to no racism is still alive and well in the right wing.
Hashing It Up, the Concise Way
Somebody once that instead of writing posts here, we should just write blogs and post links.
I have to admit, it's easier to just summarize the summary:
A lot easier.
Hell, I don't even need to cite myself. Self-promotion certainly has its advantages.
At any rate, yeah. Something about Ted Cruz. Predictable, and all that.
Somebody once that instead of writing posts here, we should just write blogs and post links.
I have to admit, it's easier to just summarize the summary:
• "The wisdom of Bush, the fearmongering of Cheney, the ideology of Rand Paul, and the face of the drama mask."
• "Like Sarah Palin's annoying younger brother."
• "An ocean in every house and a probe in every woman."
• "Just in case Rand Paul wasn't crazy enough for you."
• "Because Joseph McCarthy deserves a second chance."
• "Like Sarah Palin's annoying younger brother."
• "An ocean in every house and a probe in every woman."
• "Just in case Rand Paul wasn't crazy enough for you."
• "Because Joseph McCarthy deserves a second chance."
A lot easier.
Hell, I don't even need to cite myself. Self-promotion certainly has its advantages.
At any rate, yeah. Something about Ted Cruz. Predictable, and all that.
Bells
Staff member
Conservatives made a bigger issue about Obama's race than anyone else did.
Yes, he was born from an American born mother and a Cuban born father in Canada. They then migrated to the US and Cruz had dual citizenship. He recently relinquished his Canadian citizenship. It is because of his American born mother that he is a "natural born citizen by law".
Obama was born from an American mother in the US. So by law, he is also a "natural born citizen". He never held citizenship in any other country. The only birther problem Obama had was from the Conservatives who pitched a fit that a black man was running for President.
From my understanding, Trump is already starting to pitch a fit about Cruz citizenship and I am sure other birthers who disagree with his policies or his race will also come wiggling out of the woodwork soon enough.
True, Obama never once raised the “race card” during the campaigns. But it is very difficult to avoid the race issue when you are the POTUS as it is and continues to be a national problem. Obama’s comments on racial issues have been very moderate, honest and factual in nature. Unlike Cruz or most folks in the Republican Party, Obama isn’t given to flights of fancy.
True.
Well, not so fast. That undoubtedly will be the argument Cruz will make. But that doesn’t make it true. The fact is American law does not define “natural born citizen”. Every American has been taught from grade school “natural born citizen” means someone who has been born on American soil. McCain who was the Republican nominee in 2008 was born in Panama but on soil leased by the US and under the traditional definition was qualified to be POTUS. Cruz wasn’t born on US soil no matter how you slice it. Cruz’s only claim to naturalization and to US citizenship rests on the citizenship of his mother.
Ultimately the Supreme Court will need to define “natural born citizen” and under this Supreme Court, that decision will be decided solely on political merits rather than legal merit. If a broader definition of “natural born citizen” benefits the Republican Party, then this court will render a broader definition. If a narrower traditional definition benefits the Republican Party, then this Supreme Court will render a narrower definition of “natural born citizen”.
“even though legal experts still debate whether “natural born” means “born in the U.S.” or merely “not naturalized later in life.” The real issue is that the Supreme Court has never really had to say either way. The natural-born citizen qualification is untested in practice, and it’s not even clear who would have legal standing to challenge a president” - Time, Lilly Rothman http://time.com/3754408/ted-cruz-history-natural-born/
Birthers have rested their entire case against Obama’s presidency on the narrower definition of “natural born” and on the false pretext that Obama wasn’t born in the US. So it is more than a little funny now to see them use the broader definition of “natural born citizen” and ignore Canadian Ted’s Canadian citizenship – talk about hypocrisy!
Indeed, Obama is a natural born citizen no matter how one defines “natural born citizen”. It is more than hypocritical for Republicans who falsely claimed Obama wasn’t qualified because he wasn’t born in the US now support Cruz who really wasn’t born in the US and really was a Canadian citizen as recently as last year.
There's a little firecracker of a question lurking in the background here: if one's birth mother being American makes one a natural born American citizen, does one's birth father being American have the same effect?
A few thousand Vietnamese may be following the Cruz candidacy with more than the usual interest.
A few thousand Vietnamese may be following the Cruz candidacy with more than the usual interest.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...ame-ammunition-in-climate-policy-debate-video
It is the text at that link I want read -but very hard to copy any to post here. Here is part:
“Brown has very ably raised the stakes on this debate at a time when it is sorely needed,” Dr. O’Connor says.
She points out that Brown was one of the prime movers behind the original 1970 Clean Air Act, which tackled air pollution on a national level.
During his “Meet the Press” appearance, Brown criticized Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky for urging governors to defy federal directives to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
“President Obama is taking some important steps,” Brown said. “And to fight that, it borders on the immoral.”
Brown said Senator McConnell was “representing his coal constituents” and putting at risk “the health and well-being of America.”
Brown also had words for Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas, who announced his presidential campaign Monday.
“That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of existing scientific data, it’s shocking,” Brown said.
“And I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”
It is the text at that link I want read -but very hard to copy any to post here. Here is part:
“Brown has very ably raised the stakes on this debate at a time when it is sorely needed,” Dr. O’Connor says.
She points out that Brown was one of the prime movers behind the original 1970 Clean Air Act, which tackled air pollution on a national level.
During his “Meet the Press” appearance, Brown criticized Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky for urging governors to defy federal directives to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
“President Obama is taking some important steps,” Brown said. “And to fight that, it borders on the immoral.”
Brown said Senator McConnell was “representing his coal constituents” and putting at risk “the health and well-being of America.”
Brown also had words for Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas, who announced his presidential campaign Monday.
“That man betokens such a level of ignorance and a direct falsification of existing scientific data, it’s shocking,” Brown said.
“And I think that man has rendered himself absolutely unfit to be running for office.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Canadian Ted announced his candidacy as expected and has raised 3 million dollars in the 3 days following his announcement. Compare that to Bush III, Bush III has raised 1oo million dollars and he isn't officially running. Next week Rubio is expected to announce his candidacy. I look forward to that announcement. Maybe he will entertain us with his famous bloopers.
Given Rubio's last national speaking event, I imagine he will be very well hydrated, perhaps too well hydrated. Maybe we will get to see Rubio do the "I Gotta Pee Pee Dance". That will be worth seeing. Somebody had better make sure Rubio has a urinal on standby.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=MARCO Rubio FUNNY&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=marco rubio funny&sc=5-17&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=647FBDD97B32FBB1C341647FBDD97B32FBB1C341
Given Rubio's last national speaking event, I imagine he will be very well hydrated, perhaps too well hydrated. Maybe we will get to see Rubio do the "I Gotta Pee Pee Dance". That will be worth seeing. Somebody had better make sure Rubio has a urinal on standby.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=MARCO Rubio FUNNY&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=marco rubio funny&sc=5-17&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&mid=647FBDD97B32FBB1C341647FBDD97B32FBB1C341
Last edited:
This post is off-topic for this thread.
Did you ever wonder why global warming was rebranded via the new marketing strategy called climate change? Why did the powers to be change the sales pitch from Coke, into the new and improved Coke deluxe? Marketing is how you get consumers to buy. What was wrong with the old branding and why would new branding be expected to increase consumer demand?
One thing that was wrong with the man made global warming branding, were the computer models were not getting the future correct by extrapolating temperature. The poles did not melt and hurricanes did not happen the way the model predicted. The question became, how do you market these poor results and expand the brand? They came up with climate change because this excuses all the bad predictions, because errors can be blamed on a wild card mystery called climate change.
Another problem is, the earth has undergone heating and cooling cycles in the past, even before there was man; last ice age. The past also had climate change. There is a possibility that the climate change and the slight global warming, are all natural, and not man made. This is dismissed using a magic trick.
The way the modern magic trick is being done is connected to comparing data as apples to oranges. The modern data is gathered by high tech tools, in real time, like digital thermometers and satellites. The older natural data from heating and cooling cycles, like from the last ice age, is inferred through indirect methods, like changes in soil and counting tree rings. Based on the assumptions for the old data inference, one can tweak the temperature of the past up and down. This will not be seem, because one is comparing apples (tree rings) to oranges (digital thermometers).
Since we can't use thermometers to measure temperature 1 million years ago, how about we use tree ring type methods to measure the present and the past, so we can normalize to the past; apple to apples? This way the assumptions, if biased, will bias both sets of data the same way; hidden wires for the magic trick.
One thing that was wrong with the man made global warming branding, were the computer models were not getting the future correct by extrapolating temperature. The poles did not melt and hurricanes did not happen the way the model predicted. The question became, how do you market these poor results and expand the brand? They came up with climate change because this excuses all the bad predictions, because errors can be blamed on a wild card mystery called climate change.
Another problem is, the earth has undergone heating and cooling cycles in the past, even before there was man; last ice age. The past also had climate change. There is a possibility that the climate change and the slight global warming, are all natural, and not man made. This is dismissed using a magic trick.
The way the modern magic trick is being done is connected to comparing data as apples to oranges. The modern data is gathered by high tech tools, in real time, like digital thermometers and satellites. The older natural data from heating and cooling cycles, like from the last ice age, is inferred through indirect methods, like changes in soil and counting tree rings. Based on the assumptions for the old data inference, one can tweak the temperature of the past up and down. This will not be seem, because one is comparing apples (tree rings) to oranges (digital thermometers).
Since we can't use thermometers to measure temperature 1 million years ago, how about we use tree ring type methods to measure the present and the past, so we can normalize to the past; apple to apples? This way the assumptions, if biased, will bias both sets of data the same way; hidden wires for the magic trick.
Last edited:
Have you even seem the global map from NOAA, that shows the natural fires of the earth. This creates a huge natural carbon footprint. The picture below is an animation, that can be found at this link.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/?eocn=topnav&eoci=globalmaps
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/?eocn=topnav&eoci=globalmaps
U
How about removing the offending posts?
We know why: Because Frank Lutz recommended that Republican media operations use "climate change" in furtherance of Republican political agendas, which involved denying AGW. And so they all did.wellwisher said:
And so we come back to relevance in the thread - the Clown Car is going to be packed with AGW denialists, running for President of the United States using Frank Lutz vocabulary to obscure (and therefore enable) their political agendas