Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President
At 3:00 Eastern time on Monday Dec. 15, 538 electors in state capitols across the US cast the votes that actually elected Barack Obama the 44th President. Obama received, unofficially, 365 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win). The exact total will not be official — or Obama officially elected — until Congress certifies the count of electoral votes in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2009. The Electoral College was established in its present form in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state — in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise, but no "faithless elector" has ever been charged with a crime. "On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. ... To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election."
What your saying is that McCain has an outside shot?
Why is this piece of tripe on Slashdot? You can read this stuff all you want on CNN.com or any other "news" channel. I thought Slashdot was "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
This doesn't matter.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
The point is that the fabric of US democracy lies on the will of these electors. and Obama is one less procedure away from being president.
I'm REALLY tempted to click that, just for old time's sake.
Also, it'd probably be more interesting/newsworthy than the article.
Lots was made about Sarah Palin being on the Republican ticket. In 1972, Roger MacBride--a faithless Republican elector from Virginia--decided that he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon. He cast his vote for John Hospers & Tonie Nathan on the Libertarian ticket, marking the first time a woman had ever received an electoral vote.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
they still had a little aristocratic doubt in the back of their minds, and put this ridiculous electoral college system in place. an arostocratic hedge. a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up
al gore should have rightfully been president of the united states in 2000, and for all that you can accuse al gore of potentially screwing up (what, too much environmental regulation?), there's nothing he could have done to the usa as bad as what gw bush did. our economy, our international image, our own faith in our govt to protect our freedoms, torture, preemptive war, etc
of course, i understand in reality the chance of getting rid of the ec is incredibly difficult, its too entrenched. but maybe at least we can, on a state by state basis, convince the states that ec votes should be awarded proportional to popular vote, like maine and nebraska do now (i think). so texas will suddenly cough up a bunch of democratic votes, but so will new york suddenly cough up some republican votes. isn't it necessary that we star thinking less partisan? is it fair to people in austin that texas is viewed as a republican block? is it fair to people in upstate new york that new york is viewed as a democratic block? don't these people's voices deserve equal share in the vote for president?
of course, if texas passed such a law, but not new york, or new york passed such a law, but not texas, this obviously skews results for republicans or democrats. in which case, you'd still need to make sure the key swing states that traditionally, now, deliver breadbaskets of electoral votes for one party or another, all start delivering proportionally on the same presidential election, so it would have ot happen in one 4 year span
incredibly difficult still, but doable. and do we another gw bush presidency to convince you it needs to be done?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is news for nerds because the difference between the way things are expected to work and the way they are actually implemented is a nerd interest.
The fact that this something that happens regularly every four years doesn't mean it isn't news. If that were the case, then we would not see stories with titles like "The worst/best/most/least ____ of 2008" in the upcoming weeks.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ron Paul FTW! All kidding aside, it doesn't matter if Obama's mother was a British citizen or McCain was born in Panama. You're a natural born citizen if A) you're born on U.S. soil (Obama was born in Hawaii), or if you're born to an American citizen (McCain's parents were both US Citizens), so it was a moot point.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Seriously, could we get any more fawning over President-elect Obama? I don't recall Slashdot carrying this level of minutiae for either of the prior Bush terms.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
There are instances in history where the electoral college went against the will of the people. This would be news in that instance. Otherwise it's just business as usual.
By the way, did you hear that some of the presidents weren't even born in the USA?! That's scandalous! I hope Lou Dobbs is on the case.
You just got troll'd!
obama sneezes at
gooda love the google ads here
Bird Flu Virus Protection
Boost your immune system & help protect yourself from the Bird Flu
Maybe bush will declare martial law, and then when this space station breaks away from earth, and destroys our whole fleet by employing cybernetically altered telepaths, he'll turn the earth's defense grid against the earth, and it will be up to Obama to save us all by destroying all the platforms before they can create a scorched earth scenario... ...or...
Maybe he'll just be another elected official, like all the previous presidents, and isn't really an evil puppet as some people have tried to fantasize...
Wouldn't it be something if bush was just a normal guy?
--Ray
http://www.beanleafpress.com
The real reason:
By the end of the day, you'll see hundreds of posts to this thread. Many rants about Bush. Comments about the evangelical Christians and their agenda. Comments about bailouts. Etc...
This will draw many many eyeballs to advertisements and clicks. The end of the quarter is coming up and they need try to make the numbers. Even then, I'm sure there's going to be layoffs at Slashdot next year, too. Then, we'll really see the dupes!
I don't agree with you. You should be modded down.
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
Personally, I suspect pudge is behind this one, since he wrote a rant last night about how nobody at all covered this, and how the news companies that did screwed up by calling it "official".
Suddenly, slashdot has an article about the "unofficial" electoral college results. What a coincidence?
Would there have to be a special election? ....?
Would Bush/Cheney stay in office until
The Speaker becomes President only a sitting President and VP are taken out?
Is this documented anywhere?
BTW, my question in no way hopes that such an event occur.
You would only need 97.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Scientists who analyzed the mucus from the tissue President-Elect Obama used during the sneeze have determined that Obama is suffering from a rare strain of an interspecies-infecting influenza virus. The fate of the human race remains undetermined.
My blog
(2) Obama may have been born in Southeast Asia, and therefore not a natural born citizen.
Everything I have seen indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii. Got anything to back up your claim?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
we're talking about the presidential vote, the electoral college. hello?
we're not talking about execution by vote. this isn't a science fiction convention
can you keep your emotional propaganda in your pants please?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes, because the last 8 years have been a glorious crowning acheivement for the Republic.
I remember during the 2000 election fiasco, I was watching some news call in show. A woman said that Gore had an unfair advantage, because he was a career politician and probably knew about this electoral college stuff, while she was sure Bush didn't. She apparently had never heard of it.
It doesn't hurt to remind people of the bizarre way that the US Presidential election works.
Incorrect. Barack Hussein Obama was, indeed, born in Hawaii 2 years after Hawaii achieved statehood. Read all about it on Snopes. Say what you will, but Barb and Dave are usually pretty good about scoping out all the facts.
My blog
Aside from the Founders, name one.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state -- in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise
Someone please explain that sentence to me, because to me it sounds like: "In the US, driving you car on the sidewalks is allowed -- in fact you'll go to jail in most states if you do so."
i'm glad you can spin scenarios where this is not true. and? supposition is not fact
the official record is al gore won the popular vote. please, show us contingencies and if-then conditions where this is not true. it doesn't mean anything
meanwhile, we also have the factual record of the abyssmal gw bush administration. can you tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq?
we need to remove the electoral college, to prevent another a gw bush: gw bush was not the democratic will of the american people, according to factual record (not your suppositions). yet he took the white house, and we paid dearly for this idiotic anachronistic tweak on our popular will called the ec
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
but it is an excellent point, and i thank you for it
yet another reason to get rid of the ec: its as outdated anachronism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Shut...down...EVERYTHING.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
1) Technically all the questions to those in Kenya about Barrack Obama, have neglected to specify Jr or Sr. Since him and his father share an identical name, its impossible to know which one they are talking about.
2) Minors can not give up their citizenship. And parents can't give up their minor's citizenship.
You take the first step, and then maybe I'll give up my gun in an urban environment. Post a sign on your apartment window that says "I believe in gun control. There are no firearms in this residence." The availability of firearms is a general, not specific deterrent. However if you let folks know of your views of how the world should be, then perhaps we can see how well it works out for you.
Good luck.
p.s. You might also help your cause by learning when to use capital letters. It really helps the reader determine when your next sentence begins, and also conveys a sense of pride in authorship.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
I was taught that it was because no one wanted to beat Washington's electoral record, but it is far more likely that Plumer simply did not like Monroe or his policies.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
I don't recall even posting on anything related to Obama. This isn't about Obama, it's about /.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Yeah, but on Digg 99% of the comments consist of something along the lines of "LOL PWNED!" That's not really the audience of users I trust to decide what is important and what isn't.
The most popular story on Digg right now isn't even a story. It's some asshole's comic, entitled "Stupid TV! Be more helpful!"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.
Why not? That's what I'd do, if I wanted to get anything done. The last president to fill most of his staff with Washington outsiders was Jimmy Carter; while he is underrated as a President, this decision cost him a lot of effectiveness. The last major initiative headed by a Washington outsider was the Clinton's health plan. Not knowing how national politics worked wasn't exactly an asset.
Ronald Reagan was, in terms of getting his policy initiatives acted upon, one of the most successful presidents in modern history. His administration was staffed largely by Nixon admiinstration veterans, former congressmen, and scions of old political families. The few outsiders in his administration were either at departments he wanted to fail (Education). The only exception was Attorney General, a position he preferred to fill with old, loyal California cronies.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You've posted this same exact comment before, haven't you? I know I've seen it. I'm not criticizing, just curious because I know I've read it.
The most compelling piece of evidence that BO was born in the USA is that Clinton didn't mention it, so if Clinton can't find it, it doesn't exist
A conspiracy like this more likely with McCain then with Obama.
Obama wasn't born and the parents went well he may be president so lets spend thousands of dollars (for a middle class family in the 60's) to make sure he is officially born in the US.
Vs.
Being born in an other country in a family of 2 Generations of Navy Admirals. Who would expect greatness from their son. And have the resources to get papers changed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In 1972, Tonie Nathan became the first woman to receive an Electoral College vote (for Vice President).
She was the 1972 Libertarian VP candidate, on the ticket with John Hospers. Roger MacBride, a "faithless" Republican elector from Virginia, refused to vote for Richard Nixon, and cast the vote for Hospers and Nathan.
The United States doesn't acknowledge renouncing your citizenship when you go through a foreign nations naturalization process that has renunciation as part of its oath. USA's naturalization oath also calls for giving up any other citizenship... but other countries ignore it just like we ignore theirs. The only way to lose your USA citizenship is to go to an embassy and formally renounce it or commit treason.
While you can technically have multiple citizenships. When your in USA controlled territory the only one that matters to them is the USA one, any other is irrelevant.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Dude, you can't even get your conspiracy theories right... Obama was born in Hawaii, but since his father was a centaur, he's ineligible to be President.
And they were all grandfathered in, because the only people who can be President are natural borns and people who were citizens of a colony at the signing.
the popular vote is all that should matter
everything you said is 100% correct, in a bogus system. which renders your points pointless
i don't know why you think its important to lecture me on the facts of the status quo, when the whole issue here is the status quo is wrong
i get it. i get everything you said. i got it before you said it
do you get it that the way things work is wrong? or at least that that is the fucking subject matter?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The U.S. is a Repulic, it doesn't claim to be a pure Democracy. Don't forget it pleb !
What? Did I miss hearing about that campaign promise? Do we get to choose? (I wouldn't mind a new Madone, Barack.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Are you paying attention to what has happened in "gun-free zones" and in cities with more restrictions on gun control in the US? Crime is higher than in cities and areas with gun control, as a general rule.
You also further restrict the freedom of the law-abiding, and put them at the mercy of criminals. A majority - a VAST majority, of gun owners in the USA are NOT criminals and will likely never commit a crime. Why take away their right to own a gun? What harm will it bring to you?
Another point - conceal-carry owners typically have better criminal records than the police. They DON'T commit crimes. Criminals don't commit crimes when they believe their life is on the line.
We don't live in Europe. We live in the USA. We need to err on the side of freedom, which may mean something people don't like - gun ownership.
My head hurts
Pop quiz time, would you rather be a citizen of the United States or the African paradise of Kenya?
so you go with what the ec decides, and you wind up convincing people that they are helpless cogs in a machine, their vote doesn't matter, its card tricks and fuzzy math, democracy is a joke
or you go with the tiniest perturbation in popular will, thereby convincing people they better damn well vote in the next election since every little vote counts so much, thereby reinstilling faith in democracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
fail troll is fail
Personally, I suspect pudge is behind this one, since he wrote a rant last night about how nobody at all covered this, and how the news companies that did screwed up by calling it "official".
Suddenly, slashdot has an article about the "unofficial" electoral college results. What a coincidence?
Metal is stronger than ice, since we make boats out of metal instead of ice. At room temperature, ice will melt faster than metal. And yet, the Titanic sank because of a supposedly iceberg. And no word on this from the government... Also, if you take the word "TITANIC" and you remove the letters T, I, and T, and then you add the letters C, O, S, P, R, and Y, then it spells conspiracy. Coincidence???
Theory conspiracist will always be the same... And "what a coincidence?" doesn't make much sense. Are you asking a question or not?
Titanic stuff taken from Maddox.
Of Code And Men
then there's the issue of him enrolling in a school in Indonesia, at a time when Indonesian citizenship was required to do so, and no dual citizenship was available. To become an Indonesian citizen, he (his mother, actually) would have to renounce his US citizenship.
Or his mother falsified his citizenship status on his school application. I find that to be more likely. In fact I'd bet mother's everywhere do that sort of thing every day to give their precious spawn a better chance.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
And that worthless citation addresses his charge that the uncounted absentee votes were large enough to easily change the popular outcome HOW?
One who wags his tongue so flippantly should at least read what he criticizes.
No, it wasn't. The Canal Zone was occupied by the USA at the time, but that's not the same as saying it was "part of the U.S.", anymore than Frankfurt Germany was "part of the U.S." because American soldiers occupied Germany after WW2.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
again, let me get this absolutely clear to you: for the sake of the current (flawed) interpretation of the second amendment, there are needless deaths every day in urban settings. right now, for the disproportionate influence of rural people, urban people die.
The Urban tendency is to blame objects for acts degenerates commit. This avoids any uncomfortable questions about the sick culture in the most violent American cities.
Further, your entire post is pretty much negated by the facts- that crime, and armed crime, go up whenever a gun ban is introduced.
Why? Lawful people follow the law, criminals don't, advantage: criminals. It's really, really, simple, and I don't see why so many folks have a hard time grasping this repeatedly demonstrated phenomenon.
i look forward to the day when a few rural folks die for having their gun rights curtailed, rather then the status quo we have today, in which a lot of urban folks die for the sake of irresponsible gun ownership.
Again, rural people don't guy to gun violence, urban people do. The 'irresponsible gun ownership' occurs in the urban environment, because you allow a subculture of entitlement, selfishness and shortsightedness to flourish there, AND the cities with the worst crime have banned guns, making honest people easy targets for criminals.
You have amoral degenerates running around your cities that you refuse to deal with. That is your problem. Not guns.
Rural voters don't deserve to have more rights than urban voters, which is exactly what you are asking for, no matter how you frame it, and it is still wrong. any, ANY disproportionate influence leads to injustice and abuse of power.
Simple fact: Take away the electoral college, and the influence of small states is irrelevant. There is no way they would sign off on that change, and there is no way they would have joined the union without it.
Maine, by splitting their electoral vote to the popular vote, has made themselves irrelevant in campaigning. Most contests are close- within a few percentage points. To get an extra electoral vote in Maine, you'd need to swing an additional >10% of the vote your way.
This would take a massive campaigning effort- if it was even possible- for one additional vote.
Easier to ignore the state instead and get your half, or half +1. States that follow your idea make themselves irrelevant to the campaign and can safely be ignored.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The structure of a government body or an electoral process is a technology. These are artifacts that are designed to meet certain requirements. There are rich fields of mathematics describing what it and is not possible, and various designs (such as proportional representation or approval voting) which represent different tradeoffs between incompatible ends.
The electoral college is a case in point. The original idea was to moderate public passions by filtering them through elected representatives from each state. However once you do that, you are presented with a problem: under such a system, residents of less populous states would, in effect, have no say in an election that was entirely determined by a few large states. So they tweaked the weight of each state's vote to provide what, at the time, amounted to an equalization of power between residents of different states (as well as ensuring that no drastic measures were taken at the Federal level which would damage economies dependent on slave importation).
Of course, this leads to the "old lady who swallowed the fly" scenario: while ensuring equalization of influence between states of different sizes, it creates severe imbalances of influence between safe states and battleground states.
And that's a hallmark of an engineering problem: you can't have everything because fixes in one place create problems in other places.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Many people, who have not carefully pondered the elctoral college system consider it an anachronism.
And it's true some of it's purposes, such as not requiringing candidates to make the perilous journey to all the states and to prevent religious institutions from swaying direct democratic vote have lost their original purposes. And indeed those aspects are gone. The electors are bound democraticly not by the legislative branch as was the norm.
But it's remaining features are of great interest to nerds. It's a very clever optimization problem with a very clever robust solution.
Some people think that the president should be chosen by a popular vote. But instead the design of the college is intended to optimize a different criteria. It's purpose is to choose the person who is best able to govern and is the most broadly representative, not the most popular.
here's the three central challenges it is addressing.
1) Whenever two candidates are sufficiently close in the popular vote as to both be highly popular, the best choice is not the one that eeks out a few extra votes, but rather the one that gathers the votes from the most geographically diverse base. The states form an excellent proxy for diversity.
2) the president is the man who must follow the will of the legislative branch. Like it or not we have a union formed around a senate which has a large small state bias. If you dislike the small state bias, then you should complain about the senate not the electoral college. The president has to work with the senate after he's elected so it makes a lot of sense to give the presidentially election a minor small state bias.
this 2=extra elector bias is quite small but insures that desiderata 1 and 2 are carried out.
3) the third function of the EC system is population normalization. The president is president of all the people, not just the ones that voted or even the ones that voted for for him. He's even the president of the ones that can't vote. (felons, children, women, and slaves all counted towards the population count since the begining). Thus no matter how many people cast votes, the total effect of tose votes is viewed as a sampling of the TOTAL population of the state. So the vote's effect is renormalized to the total state population by the EC system. Even if one person voted in CA, they get 45 electors.
As an example, in the last election, the turnout in Alaska was quite small for whatever reason. but they still get the full electoral count.
The real problem with the EC system is not that it does not perfectly track the popular vote--it's not trying to be an approximation of that criteria. It's really trying to bias the choice to someone who is both popular and diversely popular.
the real reason the EC system has some difficulties is the silly winner-take-all process.
instead of eliminating it here's a suggestion. remove the winner take-all division of electors. instead, take the top-two vote-getters and approtion the electors between them in each state according to the state's popular votes. Award a 2-elector bonus to the overall vote-getter.
this preserves the renormalization, the small state bias, and the diversity bonus. But it removes all the problems.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. IF absentee ballots were counted THEN gw bush would win the popular vote in 2000
verdict: maybe. maybe not. we'll never know. but its not a record of fact. maybe if i eat unicorns i'll fart rainbows. who knows? who cares? its all conjecture
2. IF the ec college were abolished THEN al gore would be president in 2000 and the usa would never have invaded iraq
verdict: about as certain as me farting after eating refried beans. pretty fucking solid fact
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
wat http://www.reddit.com/user/circletimessquare/
Actually, the head of the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed on October 31 that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, saying that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
No, what we need is over 1000 trained ninjas attacking in concert in the middle of the night to attack the members of the electoral college as well as all the members of Congress in DC, so that we can start fresh with this whole democracy thing. Funny how we're supposed to be fighting regimes that block citizens of other countries from having a democracy but we don't have anything more than a sham here...
Two parties? Are you serious? Aren't we just about the only two-party democracy in the western world? I have co-workers that didn't know there were other candidates for president besides McCain and Obama...
2^3 * 31 * 647
It HAS been investigated, and it HAS been resolved.
The head of the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed on October 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu, saying that she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
In addition, just a few days ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case brought against Obama regarding his citizenship.
It's over. Quit bringing it up.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1063479&cid=26132199
2^3 * 31 * 647
You are correct, however that path has other destinations as well.
flattered that someone puts all the effort in though
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Mod parent down, it is a link spammer.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Chicago. Detroit. DC. Poorer cities with high crime rates. New York is a relatively wealthy city - you're distancing the historical root of crime - poverty - and blaming it on inanimate objects and better police protection, which New York can afford. You want to restrict the freedom of the law-abiding needlessly, even within cities.
Conceal-carry states are relatively poorer than their neighbors and have relatively lower crime rates than states with more restrictive gun rights. You don't pay attention to what works and what doesn't in gun control. You ignore the matter that gun owners - particularly those with conceal-carry permits - don't commit crimes and want to punish them for something they aren't doing.
1. The rural population has power disproportionate to their population because they make the food you eat. The ag industry drives this country. If you think dependance on foreign energy sources is bad, meditate on the consequences of a dependance on foreign food.
Speaking of, the arguments I hear against ag subsidies tend to be as dumb and poorly framed as your arguments against personal gun ownership.
2. The electoral college was a deal made with every state as they entered the Union. Reneging on that deal would be justifiable grounds for separation from the Union, IMO.
As others have pointed out in this thread, something like an electoral college is necessary in an Enlightenment-style Republic. It is necessary because it prevents mob rule democracy.
3. "...the usa has been mostly rural throughout its history, but is shifting to majority urban in recent years..."
The US has been mostly urban since before the Great Depression. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
4. If you really want to get rid of personal gun ownership, start the process of amending the Constitution.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Wow. I don't know where you pulled that unsubstantiated figure from, but it must really have hurt...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
Except police are not obligated to keep you safe. Like any resource, they are constrained, and oversubscribed, particularly in the urban environment.
Only you are responsible for your own safety.
I'm not trying to disagree that guns do horrible damage in urban environments... guns take what might just be brutal beatings and near fatal stabbings into horrible tragedies. Banning guns isn't the answer - removing the impetus to use the guns is. Some people will always be sociopaths, and find shooting guns at people to be delirious entertainment. Others do it out of a perceived need for survival. And others do it simply because you have what they want or feel you slighted them. They'd just as soon stab you as shoot you.
stupid.
Read radical news here
If you seriously think that discussing how the electoral college works makes someone a democratic party hack, you are the single most butthurt partisan I've ever seen. So what, for the next 4-8 years, every time someone mentions anything having to do with the office of the president, they're a Democratic party hack? Waaaaaaa!!!!!!
I love how everyone insists that THEIR version of Authoritarianism is really the One and True Freedom.
Freeedom is great! Just don't be doing anything that I don't like.
(1) Panama was part of the U.S. at the time, so McCain *is* natural born on U.S. soil.
I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I DON'T think that it was because he was born in Panama or any rights the US had on it. After all other people born in Panama didn't automatically become US citizens.
It was because he was born at a US military base and both parents were US citizens.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
You do have a point... the weakness comes from the black market in guns. There are a lot of shady dealers who flaunt the ATF requirements on waiting periods, background checks and the like. I remember reading on a crackdown of dealers here in Massachusetts a few years ago (maybe 10, not sure). Gun violence dropped by a measurable amount. But knife violence went up. I don't recall if the murder rate dropped... I wish I could find a source...
1) The Panama Canal Zone was not strictly a part of the United States:
On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.
So McCain's status isn't exactly clear. Also,
2) The constitution uses, but does not define the phase "natural born citizen", so it is not clear that being born outside the United States would disquality you.
And I thought I was naive. Outlawing personal firearms does not protect you from crooks with guns. The crooks are most likely using a stolen gun in the first place, or other illegal firearm. In the UK, which has some of the strongest gun control laws out there, criminals don't have that hard of a time getting firearms.
Gun violence is down and knife violence is up due to all those 'crimes of passion' and the like where someone on the spur of the moment (well, maybe not literally the spur of the moment) decides to kill someone.
And no, the 2nd Amendment isn't just for Farmer John to have a gun because there are no police around. Certain quotes from the founding fathers sheds light on the purpose for it: so that the people can oppose the government if the government starts abusing their rights.
The scary bit is how close to that day we are going.
How exactly does removing guns from the law-abiding population correct this problem? How do you remove weapons (because you can robbed at knife- or baseball-bat- point too) from the criminals without destroying more freedom than you are gaining?
and he might make the best president ever, but I'm a stickler for following the rules to the letter, and I am not one of those liberal 'the end justifies the means' types.
So let me guess, you're a compliance officer at your job?
You do realize that gun crime has skyrocketed in the UK since their gun ban right?
And that when Germany restricted handguns they only got back something like 20% of the weapons they were supposed to? Lord knows it's anarchy there.
And that states that not only have unrestrictive gun laws, but concealed carry have lower rates of violent crime than states that don't?
The problem with you, is that you don't draw any distinction between legal, law abiding gun owners, and criminals. In the last three months gun sales have skyrocketed and the economy is collapsing, which do you think causes more crime? Thankfully the supreme court disagrees with you.
It's amazing that easily disproved rumors and outright lies continue to be propagated by those who would subvert the democratic process.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Actually, the natural-born citizen is far more complicated that you might think. I was just recently writing about this in another public avenue, so I'm just going to copy what I wrote, even though it was in response to varying topics.
The issue isn't one of whether an individual is a citizen, it's what constitutes a natural-born citizen. A citizen is not necessarily a natural-born citizen. There is very little argument that an individual born within the United States is considered a citizen, even if neither parent is a citizen, we see enough of this problem with Mexicans that cross over and have a child in the US so that it's a US citizen.
SCOTUS is the only body which has the authority and power to look and officially declare what the term natural-born citizen means and what qualifications must be met to be one and settling the issue. Since the term natural-born citizen is really only utilized within the context of the POTUS, it should be the SCOTUS instead of any circuit court that establishes this.
If the 14th Amendment established natural-born citizen status, then Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Richardson would be eligible to become POTUS, as they are naturalized citizens, however we know this is not the case. The 14th Amendment uses the qualification "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". We know that a naturalized citizen cannot become POTUS, so axiomatically the other qualifier cannot be assumed to define a natural-born citizen. This means that just being born in the United States is not enough to qualify you as a natural born citizen. There must be other factors which lead into that, and the only logical step beyond is that it is based upon lineage. We also know that birth alone is not sufficient since individuals could be born in the United States prior to 1866 and not be considered a citizen.
An individual being a citizen by no act of law is one that early publicists agreed upon, which actually meshes very nicely with the founders, since they had a deep respect for the laws of nature. And really, for the longest time citizenship was determine through a male-centric approach. Women gained citizenship from their fathers or husbands, children from their fathers, in fact if a woman who was an American citizen married an alien she lost her citizenship. While there are laws now that children born to a single American woman are citizens, this was not always the case. The simple fact that it would be a law, presumably passed by Congress, makes it naturalization under Article I Section 8. What interpretation this lead me to is that children born of alien fathers to citizen mothers would have inherited their father's allegiance, however due to laws we established, they are instead citizens. However, without this law, the natural state would have been for the child to have been a citizen of a different country. Yes, I also realize that since law states that all individuals born within the United States are citizens you could make a claim that no one is eligible to become the POTUS, however that would be a fallacious argument as you could still look to what the natural state would have been.
Regarding Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS
Nguyen's mother was Vietnamese while his father was the American citizen. The case made it to the SCOTUS and it was a 5-4 ruling to deny him citizenship. Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1409 of the US code defines what children born out of wedlock to only 1 parent of American citizenship qualify for Section 1401, which defines nationality and citizenship (again not natural-born citizen). You can read it yourself, but it is extremely father centric. It requires a blood relation to the father, the father had US nationality at the time of birth, the father had to agree to financial support until the age of 18, and the child either lived with the father, the father acknowledged paternity, or paternity had been established by a competent court. What is interesting about that case is that it was initially decided in the Fifth Circuit, a
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
You started okay, but after the GP posted a perfectly reasonable reply, you went off half-cocked. Perhaps YOU cannot be trusted with a gun (I don't know that, but it's what you're implying), but I think that people like the GP and myself shouldn't be restricted because of your fear. What do you want after you come get my gun, to listen to my conversation to make sure I'm not platting something evil? Cut off all the natural gas to people's homes for fear of explosions?
No, if you look carefully, you'll realize that your rationalization for removing a freedom I enjoy is purely based on fear and speculation. I've seen you rally against this type of mindset before, what in this case puts you so firmly in the other camp?
The beauty of our great nation is that if you don't want to defend yourself you're more than welcome not to.
How about this:
You don't want guns, you want to rely on the police. I support your choice.
I know how long it takes police to respond assuming I get my call through and they actually decide to dispatch anyone. In the event someone enters my house with the intent, either specifically or as afterthought, to harm me I'll be responsible for my own safety and that of my loved ones until the police arrive.
You have your way, I have mine.
Replying to myself to add clarification. Obama is not the cause of a problem but rather a symptom of it. The natural-born citizen statement has never been investigated neither has it been declared what constitutes a natural-born citizen. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, or a Constitutional Amendment needs to be made to strike it from the Constitution. Obama just serves as the first suitable vessel to make this issue large enough to require a SCOTUS ruling.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
And that, my friend, is why I will not consider him legally elected until the matter of his citizenship is investigated and resolved.
Get over it, man. He won and is a citizen. Do you really think the Republicans or Clinton never tried to dig up this bit of dirt on him? Maybe McCain/Palin kept harping that tired old "Bill Ayers" lines because that really was all they could dig up on the man.
I prefer 'prole', sir.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
To be honest, I don't know how they would reconcile that, but its obvious you can't be born in a country that didn't exist yet. Seeing as you have to be 35, and the USC was ratified in 1791, and 1791 - 1776 = 15 years, the no one would have qualified, unless you considered people living here at the time or the revolution as "natural born," which is what I assume happened.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Still wrong, because claiming that "there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection", as the Wiki page mentions, is entirely different from claiming that "if these 2.5 million victims had not had guns to protect themselves, each and every one of them would have been shot dead."
I think you're even more likely to get shot at if you try to use your gun, than if you just stay cool and passive. I'm not saying it's a pleasant experience either. Just my 2 euro cents.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
McCain is covered under three clauses. Children born abroad to 2 Citizens are considered natural born citizens at birth. This was enacted in the very first Congress. At his birth, the Panama canal (not the entire country of Panama) was a US territory. McCain was born in a Naval hospital as his father was stationed there.
As for Obama he was born in Hawaii in 1961 and Hawaii became a state in 1959. As for the other conspiracy allegations:
When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.
For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.
When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".
To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.
Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.
Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.
The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.
The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".
Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.
Obam
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That's not a confirmation, that's hearsay.
To be clear, though, I think he is indeed eligible, and this is all grasping at straws. I'm aghast that Obama won, and think he did so through questionable means, but he *did* win, and we have better ways as Americans to have our voice heard than whining about crap like this.
I do wonder why he didn't just show his BC to the courts, but my lawyer friends tell me that this type of "layered defense" is typical. Instead of responding to the allegation, you should question the standing of the person to bring them against you. Failing that, then begin to defend yourself.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Oh, FFS, I almost thought -I- had posted that for a second... Had me thinking to myself "I haven't gotten drunk ALREADY, have I?". Heh.
SCOTUS refused to hear the because they agreed that the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing was correct. They did not rule on the merits of the case.
Again, just clarifying, not agreeing with the nutjobs ;)
Learn about Photography Basics.
Not to mention all the Israeli dual-citizens. AFAIK just being Jewish (by blood, not conversion?) makes you an Israeli citizen.
I thought that Congress and the Senate were made to keep both small and larger states happy. Congress Bigger (more people) get more representatives. While the Senate each state get two representatives. Laws must pass both houses of Congress to pass.
Personally, the electoral college should go away. If we are going to have a popularity contest for President, then have that. Or carry the electoral college idea all the way down to the state level. In order to 'win' a state you have to 'win' most of that state. Not just win the counties with more people, but actually win more counties of that state. Did anyone look at the state breakdown of who took each county? One state had like 32 counties. The winner of that state got 7 counties while the other person got the remaining 25 counties. Those seven counties were where the big cities were.
I'll be modded to -1,000,000,000 for this, but the system should be changed. Either go all popular vote or expand the electoral system all the way down to the state level. To win a state you need to win the majority of the counties in that state.
>Mr. Hopey Changey is filling his cabinet with storied Washington insiders.
His choices: 1. People with no experience (and you would call them "hacks" and still "insiders".
2. People from a former Democratic Administration. He could have hired people from the Carter Administration, but you would call them "cronies." The only other choices come from the Clinton Administration.
I think the only way you'd be satisfied is if he appointed people from the Bush Administration. Even then, I'm sure you'd voice your opposition. There is nobody Obama can pick that would meet with your approval.
Tell you what: Come out of anonymity, and for one of the remaining cabinet positions, tell us who you think he *should* choose, and why. I'm tired of the reactionary approach to denouncing Obama. He's not seeking the approval of "Anonymous Coward," you know.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Voter turn out was what 60%?
I think that the media saying that Obama was going to win the entire time had a bigger effect on people thinking their vote mattered.
If you were for him "great he's going to win so why bother"
If you were against "damn he's going to win so why bother"
Not that it matters much, but this canard about only Indonesian citizens enrolling in schools in Indonesia is complete crap and is further evidence of just how morally bankrupt the entire "controversy" is.
I not only happen to live right across the straits from Indonesia [1], I also keep going there for short-trips, one as recently as two weeks back. Many of my colleagues, including my immediate boss, are Indonesian, as are many friends; many more grew up as ex-pats in Jakarta, in ways similar to Obama did in the 60's. Take it from me; you dont need to be Indonesian to attend a school there. It is a piece of absolute and complete rubbish that should insult anybody's intelligence.
On further googling: Perhaps you meant to talk about this piece of excrement, the true extent of whose stench is only apparent when you realize that Obama attended a public school that's colloquially called as SDN Besuki, and not a Catholic school named after St Francis of Assisi in Bahasa Indonesia (that's Indonesia's national language, in case you were wondering).
[1] - I mean that in a reality-based, non-Palin-isque sense; yes, Indonesia is just across the Straits of Malacca, some 45 min away by boat. I can, indeed, see Indonesia on a clear day and sometimes receive Indonesian mobile network while I'm in my own room.
More than mere navel gazing.
When questions about his birth appeared, he published a scanned copy of his Certificate of Live Birth on his website. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com both show copies of it.
For purposes of proving birth, it is accepted by all other states and the federal government as proof. You can use it to get a passport.
When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records. Instead, the State of Hawaii will look up the data, print out a certificate, put a seal on it, and put a stamped signature. The COLB is a short form copy that does not have all the details of the long form original like the hospital. Because some individuals are not born in a hospital, the short form copy lists only those fields which are relevant to all births like "Place of Birth".
To be clear, Obama's team has never claimed that the COLB was his original birth certificate only that it was an official copy of his birth certificate. As for possessing an original birth certificate, many people do not have theirs. They may have been lost over the years. For most people, when you request a copy from your state, most likely the state will print out a copy as Hawaii as done here.
Both the seal and the signature appear on the back of the form which was not scanned. The seal is raised and would not easily appear on a scan anyways. Viewing the document at an angle, you can see the seal. Factcheck.org has seen the COLB and has taken other pictures.
Most government signatures for documents like this are not hand signatures; they are stamped signatures.
The look of birth certificates varies from state to state and in some cases, county to county. The COLB presented by Obama is the same form as any other COLB from Hawaii.
The COLB lists the Place of Birth. In Obama's case, it lists "Honolulu".
Starting in 1982, the State of Hawaii allowed parents to register their children who were born elsewhere as an secondary means of proof just like a passport proves citizenship in lieu of a Certificate of Naturalization or a birth certificate. However, the COLB would not deviate the Place of Birth from the original birth certificate. If a child was not born in Hawaii, the COLB would list their Place of Birth as some place other than "Hawaii". This registration was not an option for Obama's mother as he was born in 1961.
Obama's campaign says blacking out the numbers was a cautionary move just in case the number was security sensitive just like you would not post a SSN online. As it turns out, it was not. FactCheck shows the number.
A datestamp on the jpeg can mean anything like
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Which still have a 10 min response time. To simulate the effects of 10 min where every second matters, stare at a clock for the next 10 min and count every second that passes.
>This is an issue that needs to be resolved
Okay: If it can be shown that a particular citizen's citizenship was conferred artificially, then that person is a naturalized citizen, otherwise the citizenship was from birth.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Your idea that nerds do not care about politics is simply wrong.
Nguyen nor Aguilar apply to Obama because both were born outside the US while Obama was born in the US.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
>
I would argue that the electoral college is designed that way because it's the states that elect the president, not the people. Remember, there was a real wariness about the federal government in general, probably more so than today. Nobody wanted the federal government to do anything exiting, like levy taxes on everyone.
Thus, the electoral college. The electors vote for the president, and those electors in turn are elected by the populace of the states. Those voters were essentially vetted by the states, since the electors were appointed by the current party structure(s)...and the voters, of course, had to pass certain criteria to vote.
It's yet another check. It hasn't really been used, but that doesn't mean it should be taken away.
If you see California and New York as a problem, then splitting the electoral vote of a state would be a solution. That would hurt the Democrats tremendously, so it won't happen; it would essentially marginalize all the cities.
The EC really works fine, for the most part. There's only been what, one issue in the last few hundred years, and that's hardly a reason to revise anything.
Say what you will, but Barb and Dave are usually pretty good about scoping out all the facts.
Not really. They dismissed the idea that Coke+Aspirin is an intoxicating combination because Coke is benign and Aspirin is benign, until I pointed out that caffeine and Aspirin have a synergistic effect and Excedrin is a combination of the two. Now, obviously it isn't going to get you high, but demonstrates that two minor substances can combine surprisingly. I'd assumed this was common knowledge but the Snopes people had completely missed it.
Their site makes for entertaining reading, but I'd trust Wikipedia over Snopes.com any day of the week (and that's saying a lot).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Well, Pudge is a moron then.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
PS - I voted for Nader asshole.
Good for you, nice choice. Picking (what I would consider) a good candidate doesn't seem to have helped the partisan pain I mention above. (If you point out where I called you a Republican, I'll graciously concede). The fact that the discussion we SHOULD be having is about a process instantly makes it better than half of the things slashdot has been posting to the frontpage lately.
Nerds call getting someone to tell them their password 'social engineering', well, a nerd that can get someone to hand them a list of IBM board member and department head passwords would be a script kiddie compared to the social hackery which is the U.S. electoral system. Your obvious animosity aside, the topic is "appropriate" reading for slashdot.
Another thing, this is CmdrTaco's BLOG. Don't like the topic, start your own blog (or, more likely, make your current one not suck). Simple, no?
P.S. Not everyone who calls you out on off-topic whining is an asshole, but in this case you actually got it right. I -AM- an asshole, and I'm good at it. You on the other hand are a whiny little douche who would rather cry about something they don't like than to spend the mental effort it takes to discuss the topic at hand. Your post added nothing of value to the topic at hand, and did nothing but show everyone what kind of spoiled child you are. Pathetic and worthless.
NOW you're justified in calling me an asshole, douche.
That part was fine, the part about it being okay that he's a theocrat, just because he supports your favorite piece of legislation (that I happen to agree with, BTW) is the part that spurred my comment. You seem to be willing to accept a different flavor of authoritarianism, and that's what (I believe) makes my comment applicable.
"strong police: that's the path to low crime"
Wait...wait a moment...I am channeling a response from the Founding Fathers....
"BWAHAHAHHAHHHAHHHAHAHAHAHA!"
Individual liberty and social prosperity are the ONLY solutions to crime.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled delusions.
With that logic, the UK can prevent everyone from being president, by declaring all US citizens are UK citizens as well. Idiots.
Not since 1815 has this been true, but shine on you crazy diamond
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
This is incorrect. Anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the immigration status of that person's parents. From the 14th Amendment:
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Do you have evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the State Department and the State of Hawaii?
If you do not, why can't you convince yourself of the weakness of your position?
What rule do you assert has not been "followed to the letter?"
The constructive argument at work here is quite simple:
Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
There is no evidence that this citizenship was conferred artificially.
Therefore Obama is a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.
The sole authority for these two premises is the State Department, which didn't argue on Berg's behalf. This means there was never anything that Berg could question.
In order to believe that Obama was born in Kenya, one must accept a conspiracy theory that almost rivals anything in the JFK world. State and Federal agencies in on the fraud starting in '61. An ordinary housewife leaving the country and re-entering, with the efficiency and secrecy of the best spies. Several newspapers. The U.S. Senate. The Bush Administration. The RNC *AND* the DNC, and the McCain campaign, several courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court, all in on a coverup to protect the forgers of Obama's birth certificate.
There are people who still believe this, but I wonder why none has gone so far as to accuse the perpetrators of the fraud by bringing a criminal case. Start with the Notary Public whose name appears on the back of the COLB that was posted. Also, right from the beginning, you can name at least two state officials in Hawaii, and probably should name the Governor of Hawaii and possibly the Secretary of State, since all of these people would be actively involved in the fraud.
But I don't see Berg making any criminal accusations, where he would have to go under oath personally and face potentially serious consequences if he has no evidence on which to base the accusations.
Donofrio, on the other hand, claims that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's amusing that some people supported both Berg and Donofrio, even though they make contradictory claims. Then it becomes clear that we are dealing with people who simply oppose Obama, and any vehicle that allows them to voice that opposition is accepted by them.
Or maybe the whole thing is a sham and there is a gigantic conspiracy inside and outside the government to keep it covered up.
Your call. Unless you are in the military, there is no law that says you personally are obligated to "consider the President legally elected." Basically, any action the government takes is subject to redress by you. Good luck.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
>>>Everything I have seen indicates that Obama was born in Hawaii. Got anything to back up your claim?
Do you?
Nobody's seen his birth certificate except one judge who, for some strange reason, is keeping it hidden. Is this certificate fake? It's possible.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
This claim is the central theme of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" and it is, at best, debatable. The Wikipedia page on Lott's book isn't a bad starting point on the controversy.
Even if true, this is quite likely a product of restrictive laws on granting concealed carry permits, rather than an argument for loosening those laws.
Technically when Obama's stepfather adopted him, Indonesian laws would recognize Obama as an Indonesian citizen. However the other poster is correct. To lose US citizenship, Obama would have had to renounce it as an adult or commit treason. Becoming naturalized to another country is not enough, especially for a child.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
>>>The head of the Hawaii Department of Health confirmed
And she could not possibly be lying, because politicians/bureaucrats are completely trustworthy. (cough)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Jimmy Carter; while he is underrated as a President
I think it's too late to spend your mod points ;)
>>>When requesting proof of birth, the State of Hawaii, like many other states, does not send someone down to the archives to photocopy old records.
Perhaps they should. Especially for the Supreme Law of the Land's requirement that the most-powerful man in the nation be natural born.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
>>>because Coke is benign and Aspirin is benign, until I pointed out that caffeine and Aspirin have a synergistic effect and Excedrin is a combination of the two.
Precisely. I can't believe Snopes made such an obvious mistake. Two substances when joined often act very differently. The obvious example is Hydrogen and Oxygen. Both are gases and somewhat dangerous (flammable), but when you join them together you get a liquid which douses flames.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Age and year of occurrence, maybe?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Chris, I hate to be the one to tell you..
We all lost, I will not get over it.
In a little over 30 days from now...
Things will continue as per the agenda, the war(s) will escalate, you will still not have health care and the new administration will begin to chip away at the freedoms of the citizens of the United States of America where their predecessors left off.
Cheers!
> fear in urban communities by gun toting thugs is a form of slavery
1. Your solution is to remove the gun. This has been tried and shown not to work for the quite logical reason that the thugs simply get a fresh weapon. And no gun ban can change that cold reality. When the criminal world can bring in narcotics by the metric ton they will be able to stick a couple of small arms in the bales. So close every gun shop in America and criminals will have exactly the same weapons. On the other hand if we remove the whole gun toting thug we at least prevent all of the future crimes that particular thug would commit.
2. You guys really need to STFU with comparing everything to slavery. Yes living in fear from a total breakdown in law enforcement is horrible but it ain't got shit on chains, whips and all the horrors of actual slavery. It is as bad as the feminazis overloading the word 'rape' until it loses most of it's meaning.
Democrat delenda est
If the Supreme Court refused to hear a case against a spammer or a crooked RIAA lawyer, I'm sure Slashdot would be UP IN ARMS.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
One thing about this whole Obama citizenship debate that bothers me - how the *hell* do we even wind up in a situation where, *after* the election, someone is questioning eligibility? In order to run for President, you have to register your candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, or something, don' you? Why aren't candidates required to prove eligibility as a requirement to even *be in the election*?
We should not have a system where it's even remotely possible that someone could be elected when they aren't eligible.
That said, there really is no question that Obama is a natural citizen. After all, we know who his mother and grandmother are, and we know they are natural born citizens. By definition, if either of your parents are US citizens, you are a natural born citizen. Unless you don't think the woman he claims as his mother really is his mother.
First replace "Panama" with "Panama Canal" in my previous post.
Second, no the United States did not occupy foreign territory. The U.S. actually OWNED the "canal zone", according to the treaty between the U.S. and Panama.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
A state might have millions even tens of millions of birth records. So every time someone asks for a birth certificate, they would have to send someone down to the archives? Multiply that by the number of requests that a state might receive in a day. It's not practical. That's why states computerize records.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
> He still has not releases his college records and birth certificate.
He still hasn't releases those things? I had thinks he had pledges to exposes or explains them. I wouldn't have votes for him otherwise.
What if he never wents to college? Or wasn't even borns?
>>>SCOTUS is the only body which has the authority and power to look and officially declare what the term natural-born citizen means
No. That power ultimately belongs to the 50 States, because they are the signatories to the contract that is the Constitution. The SCOTUS may offer their opinion of what is meant, but ultimately it is the States that can, through convention, define the meaning of "natural born" and thereby overrule anything SCOTUS says.
I agree that the U.S. Supreme Court acts as a good arbitrator in order to provide peaceful resolution.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
The thing about a faithless elector - unless the election is so close that you can actually change it, there's no point to switching your ballot. If the guy you are voting against anyway is still going to be president, all you've done is slapped the President of the United States in the face and ticked off all of his partisans. Not a good place to be, I'm pretty sure. If you were able to change the outcome of your election, you better fear for your very life, because you will have made about 49 percent of the nation very, very angry. And according to the Supreme Court's recent ruling, we are a nation where the 2nd Amendment gives an individual right to bear arms.
Actually, it is those residing in the United States at the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Precisely. I can't believe Snopes made such an obvious mistake.
I can. Read some of their articles on a subject where you know a bit. It can be painful. My main complaint is that they present themselves as authoritative, as though they've done all the research so that you don't have to. At least Wikipedia is honest about its incompleteness.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
That has far more to do with a corrupt and dishonest media than it does with democracy or our electoral system (or even the two parties). If the media actually covered the other candidates, or allowed them to participate in the media moderated and sponsored debates, people would know about them.
Actually, we don't have a true democracy here (thank goodness). We have a federal republic with checks and balances. And that's very fortunate, because democracy in its pure form is simply mob rule. We have some checks on the majority to keep it from just running rampant over minorities, which does technically break with pure democracy but is a very good idea. Ultimately, of course, at the end of the day super-majorities do have the ultimate say, because that's better than a king, but fortunately we do not have a pure democracy.
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence. Yes, our government is pretty terrible at the moment (and I think will be even worse when the new congress and administration come in), but it isn't because the government isn't reflecting us. Rather, it is because the government reflects us that it is so terrible. We as a society are becoming a bunch of lazy, uneducated, entitlement people who think we have a right to everything without actually working hard at learning and producing. We, as a society, don't bother to learn anything about economics, government (especially how ours is supposed to work), foreign affairs or anything else. Then we go to the polls and vote based on our ignorance (usually for whoever "looks presidential" or "will fix our lives" or "promised us X").
No, the sad fact is, our government is a VERY good reflection of what we are becoming as a society and a nation. Does congress look like a whiny, clueless island of misfit toys? Yes, but so do we.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Not to nitpick overmuch, but every state also agreed on the mechanism by which the constitution, and thus the method of electing the president, could be altered. In order to remove the electoral college both houses of congress would have to agree to do so with two thirds majority and then three fourths of the states legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Or, two thirds of the states legislatures would have to convene a constitutional convention, approve an amendment, and again three fourths of the state legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Either way, the states agreed to this when they agreed to join the union.
You know all those recent law enforcement-themed tv shows that portray the officers roughing up suspects because they simply must have the information, or those that snoop into bank records without probable cause? They're criminals IMHO, regardless of the the perceived merit of their intent. A very bad precedent, and it makes people think that giving up a little liberty for (perceived) safety is a good thing.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If you oppose gun ownership, and live in the US, there's really only one rational way to go about it.
You must campaign for an amendment to the constitution allowing the government to regulate arms.
Because there's already an amendment that specifically forbids it from doing the same and if you're willing to just ignore the constitution in this case, then why not some of the other amendments and articles, too? Like, say the first one.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there is a significant fraction of NRA membership who would support your measure if moderate. Give them the chance.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
While I have no opinion on the legality of his citizenship (conspiracy seems a bit far fetched - what motive?), how can a citizen "lack standing" to question the election of his government officials?
Maybe I am just ignorant... But, why in the world do we even need an extra layer of complexity called the "electoral college"?
I honestly do not see the need for it. Everyone casted their vote. They picked Obama. He is the next president.
I can only justify the need for another round of voting, only if the average Joe's vote didn't count.
Barack Obama will be my president, and I reserve the right to criticize all the corrupt, stupid shit he has stated he is going to do. This is a constitutional republic, not a dictatorship.
Regardless of whether he was born in the Hawaii, I question whether he gave up his citizenship to attend school in Indonesia, as has been posited. If so, can he still be considered eligible? I don't know the answer, and I don't really care one way or the other, but if we are to be a country bound by the rule of law, that issue must be resolved. Those that chose to vote for him seem willing to ignore the question, which only helps feed the government's "we're above the law" attitude.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
If the 14th Amendment established natural-born citizen status, then Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Richardson would be eligible to become POTUS, as they are naturalized citizens, however we know this is not the case. The 14th Amendment uses the qualification "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". We know that a naturalized citizen cannot become POTUS, so axiomatically the other qualifier cannot be assumed to define a natural-born citizen. This means that just being born in the United States is not enough to qualify you as a natural born citizen.
You are confusing natural-born and naturalized. They are very different.
Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalized_citizen
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a naturalized US citizen (born in Austria, moved to the US, and became a citizen). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnold_Schwarzenegger
Bill Richardson is a natural-born US citizen (born in Pasadena, California). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Richardson
It is too bad that there are so many people, so completely scared, that they think they need to "protect" themselves with a gun.
I don't even lock my door, why should I bother owning a gun? I don't worry about that stuff. Plus, if someone were to break in to my house, grabbing a gun is just about the stupidest thing to do. The criminal is probably 1) armed, 2) awake and alert, 3) ruthless, 4) ready to use his weapon to make sure he doesn't get caught. Who do you think is going to win that battle, you or the criminal? My bet is on the criminal.
By grabbing a gun, you have just elevated the chances of YOU dying by a great amount.
It's not about being afraid, it's about being prepared.
You honestly believe the "1) armed, 2) awake and alert, 3) ruthless, 4) ready to use his weapon to make sure he doesn't get caught" criminal is going to have mercy on you because you are unarmed? You are merely easy prey.
It's been fun but you will have to excuse me, I am leading Kumbaya and also in charge of the gumdrops today. Maybe we can have a skip through the field with all the wild flowers someday.
Being Jewish by blood and meeting the qualifications, just guarantees that you can immigrate to Israel and live there. Current law and practice is that if you apply for citizenship you will get granted it, but it is not guaranteed or granted by the same law allowing immigration.
This is false. Like Obama, McCain was challenged (since he wasn't actually born in the US, does not have Constitutional birthright citizenship, and is only arguably a citizen-by-right-of-birth due to retroactive legislation passed after he was born) in court, and the challenge thrown out by a federal trial court for lack of standing for those bringing the case. I believe the dismissal was appealed, but the issue is now moot.
The difference between McCain and Obama is that in Obama's case the law is not in dispute, the facts are in dispute and all of the official documents produced are on Obama's side. In McCain's case the facts were not in dispute, the law was in dispute, and what little precedent there is not particularly favorable to McCain.
The campaign-supplied certificate has been confirmed by the state government that issued it, and has even been confirmed as genuine by a number of right-wing websites. There is no serious dispute about its provenance.
Since he is documented as born in the US and there is no credible challenge to that, and the US Constitution makes any person born in the US a citizen, his mother's "ability to legally transfer citizenship" is a non-issue; it would only be an issue if he was born outside of the US.
Subsequent questions of his claimed citizenship would be irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is a natural born citizen of the United States, even if they had any validity.
if the people believe the government acts in their interests, then there is social stability, and therefore happiness and prosperity.
You don't believe that this has largely been the case for the electoral college's 200+ year history? The US Constitution is the longest lasting national constitution for a reason. I'm not saying that it is perfect. But that fact does imply that the institutions it creates cannot be rejected out of hand.
Every institution created by the constitution is anti-democratic: Senate seats aren't based on population, the federal judiciary is unelected, a convoluted super-duper majority is needed to amend the constitution, the Bill of Rights specifies areas where the "will of the people" has no authority, even the concept of representative government is against true democracy. And yet, for all of those anti-democratic practices, our government is one of the most legitimate and stable in the world.
A true, direct democracy will self destruct. A government requires, not only the sanction of the majority, but the acceptance of the minority. You only have to look at the Oklahoma City bombing, Ireland over the last century, the former Yugoslavia, Muslim separatists in India, or the American civil war, to see what happens when the minority feels oppressed by the majority and that there is no democratic recourse. An unchecked majority will be seen as running roughshod over the rights of the minority.
you are flawed, because you don't trust the will of the people. the will of the people is infallible, because there is no way you can morally or intellectually stand apart from the people and judge them, because there is no morally or intellectually valid point of view that stands apart from the people
Okay. The constitution was designed to inhibit tyranny; whether that come in the form of an individual tyrant, or the tyranny of our neighbors. It set in place a system where individual freedom was protected wherever possible.
If you honestly believe that the will of the people is infallible, you either have no idea how the world works, or you are willfully ignoring the lessons of history. I just hope that in your utopia, you never find yourself on the wrong side of "the people".
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Minnesota does not allow this to happen after problems in the 2004 election. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=208.08&year=2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20041217034158/http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5134791.html
When I said reneging, I thought it implied changing the system without ammending the Constitution. I'm clearly aware of Constitutional ammendments, if you read my fourth point.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
Hal, hate to be the one to tell you...
We Won. You Lost. Get Over It.
Just curious, did you have this same attitude 4 years ago? or at 8 years ago..?
/. opportunity to Bush-bash and/or praise Obama.
I seem to recall a lot of dems screaming like banshees, nonstop, after both prior elections. In contrast, I think most republicans have generally been more calm and mature about losing this election (with the exception of a few white supremacist racists)
PS - Obama is not some kind of messiah, he's a politician, like any other. This will be more obvious in time. All this wide eyed sycophancy is going to lead to embarrassment.
This is not news-worthy news here. It's just another
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Someone mod this up. There is one more implication of the "Take away the electoral college, and the influence of small states is irrelevant. There is no way they would sign off on that change..." bit. In order to remove the EC, you'd have to pass a constitutional ammendment. To do that you would need to get it to pass by 2/3 in hte House and Senate, and 3/4th of the States' legislatures. Unless the US Senators and State Legistlatures of the 24 smaller states suddenly decide to simply give away power, this will never happen. There is no reason to discuss this, it is simply impossible, unless California creates a mind ray to turn everyone in those states into complete morons.
But... states like Maine have already decided to throw away power by splitting their EC votes, as explained by the parent. So, who knows...
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
The 20th Amendment lays out the process, though it may be argued that it's been modified by the 25th. However, the 25th doesn't specifically mention President-elect and VP-elect situations at all, only sitting officials.
Basically, in such a hypothetical situation, Congress gets to pick the successors, with a 2/3 vote probably being required.
Damn it, you bastard! Now that I've laughed like an idiot and spit my coffee all over the keyboard it's obvious I'm not working.
You could assume, or you could just read the friggin' Constitution, its not that long. The relevant part of Article II:
Or, as I often put it, our representatives are far more representative than we'd like to admin.
It must have been posted here because Twitter won him the election.
The 14'th amendment was was created to be an option.
Arg, that's 'admit', not 'admin'. I hate typos.
Really? I'm always amazed when a technology website attracts bigots. I always assumed they didn't no nuthin' 'bout 'puters. Even the moderate rightwinger Sidney McCain III admits he doesn't know how to use one and we all know Walker Bush hasn't even evolved enough to read a newspaper nevermind use a computer.
Time makes more converts than reason
It's anarchy here in Germany? Ummmm... you ever actually BEEN here? You sir, are talking out of your posterior. I've lived in a lot of different countries and visited many more. Germany is definitely right near the top when it comes to "peaceful", "safe" and "organised". Sometimes I feel a bit more anarchy here would be a good thing just to stir it up a bit.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
My question for those who advocate gun control is this:
Do you not see the futility of measures such as Alcohol Prohibition or the War on Drugs? And, if you do, why do you think prohibitions against guns will be different and more successful?
-Grym
McCain was born in Panama, not even the Panama Canal Zone, and he showed his COLB when asked to resolve his citizenship issues, which is exactly what Obama has shown.
Obama's Kenyan grandmother did NOT say that he was born in Kenya. Listen to the entire tape. It is available on YouYube. The Kenyan government has NOT said that Obama was born in Kenya.
All of the rest of your claims are also false, which is easily discoverable with a little research. "Research" does not mean browsing a few wingnut webpages.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
I'm sorry, I didn't get that, since the electoral college is in the constitution removing it would be just as hard as changing constitutional gun rights.
Not from where I'm standing. Every news article about Obama that I have read has hundrends of comments from conservatives blasting him about Acorn, Bill Ayers, "Socialism", his middle name, being Satan, etc. I'm not saying this didn't happen on the Left when Bush won but conservatives are just as bad if not worse considering the amount of bigoted responses I've read. To think conservatives seem to believe Obama's election means racism is over. It seems like they're crawling out of the woodwork now,
Time makes more converts than reason
I'm not sure what a "Repulic" is, but the US is, notionally, an (indirect or representative) democracy and a (federal) republic. "Republic" and "Democracy" are not opposing concepts; they are, nearly, orthogonal.
You can be a representative democracy without being a republic (example, Canada, which is a constitutional monarchy as well as a representative democracy), and you can be republic without being a democracy, even a representative one (example, Saddam Hussein's Iraq).
A child cannot give up his US citizenship by living abroad or renouncing it. His/her parents cannot renounce it either. A US citizen can renounce his citizenship an adult or by other means (but as an adult) Loss of Citizenship (INA 349) covers this.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Look, I don't understand why it even matters to anyone.
Let's for a moment assume that due to some technicality - a misplaced paper, some obscure law, or other omission - Obama is actually not a lawful US citizen. However, what does it really changed? He had lived as one for all his adult life. He was successfully elected to the U.S. Senate as such, and served a term there. No legalistic trickery can change the fact that, for any purpose that matters, he is American.
The only reason to raise this topic that I can see is if one has a personal vendetta against the man. It certainly doesn't hold any place in any reasonable political discussion. In that sense, it's a bit like Godwin's Law - whenever someone raises the issue of Obama's citizenship in a discussion on him, it means that he lacks any substantial arguments, and is automatically disqualified.
And that, my friend, is why I will not consider him legally elected until the matter of his citizenship is investigated and resolved.
Say hello to your legally elected President Elect.
and I am not one of those liberal 'the end justifies the means' types...
I too am I stickler for the rule of law and I've got a major problem with your post and a simple question for you:
Problem: I'm getting REALLY sick of people pretending that those that hold a different philosophy are all slimy connivers while people that profess to hold a similar philosophy are somehow virtuous.
Question: Are you as vocal against conservative 'the end justifies the means' types?
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Very good information - thanks!
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Data is a plural word. It's singular form is not 'anecdote.'
My blog
Actually, ANY country can grant you citizenship at will. Even if you don't want it! You don't have to recognise it, nor does anyone else, but if Botswana suddenly decided that I was a citizen of their country (despite having never been there, having no ties to it, or anything else), then I'd be a citizen of Botswana in addition to my other citizenships. Some countries have laws that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of another country, you must give up your claim to your current citizenship (and some that say if you CHOOSE to become a citizen of their country, you must renounce any other citizenships to do so), but as far as I know, there aren't any that would say if you're RECOGNISED as a citizen of another country you must give up others.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Now, if you are trying to claim that the will of the people is not properly represented within the system we currently have, I call bull and demand that you provide some evidence.
In other news, Illinois governer attempts to sell the senate seat... the will of the people have been met!
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
1) Measure your blood pressure
2) Look at this picture
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9747/1229454176727zy8.jpg
3) Post blood pressure here.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Those that chose to vote for him seem willing to ignore the question...
Um, you realize that people are innocent until proven guilty, right? And that the opposition in an election throws mud hoping some will stick. I don't know how to break this to you, but Karl Rove's primary campaign tactic is to generate lies and innuendo. Basically it's the political equivalent of shook and awe. But hey, one of Karl's lies (he's a muslim, no he's a terrorist, no wait, he eats babies!) may be true even though there is no evidence. Therefore, those that vote for the guy you don't like are morally inferior.
Or maybe those that voted for him have a working BS detector, at least in this one instance.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
-Summer Glau
When he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, he is recorded as having an Indonesian passport...a country which didn't allow dual citizenship.
No country may revoke your citizenship of another country. They can deny you citizenship of their country if you don't renounce your previous citizenship(s), but they can't revoke it themselves. It's entirely possible Barack Obama is, or at some stage in the past has been, an Indonesian citizen. It's also possible at the time that Indonesia may have considered him to be "solely" an Indonesian citizen, and refusing to recognise any other status. This has no bearing on whether he was ALSO a US citizen at the time or not (or whether he may have been born one, lost it, and regained it, which is also not against the rules for becoming President)
Note: I don't actually care about whether he is or is not eligible - I don't live in the US and while I think he'll probably make a fine President, it's really not my business. I'm just interested in correcting facts regarding citizenship, since it's a matter I have spent a considerable amount of time on myself (I hold 2 current citizenships (was born with 2, but one was a different one than the 2 I now hold), 2 "permanent residence" statuses in other countries and am eligible for a 3rd citizenship (regain the one I lost) without losing my others if I decide to go live in that country for 2 years - it's a complex business!)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
This doesn't follow, and the use of "axiomatically" here makes no sense. Clearly, a naturalized citizen is not a natural-born citizen, but it does not follow from the other category, that of citizens born in the United States, is not equivalent to that of "natural born citizens". In fact, that's one of the two legally credible arguments.
The counterargument is that the "natural born citizen", in Article II, clearly predates Amendment XIV and should not be viewed in terms of its categories, but in terms of the meaning of the term in context at the time Article II was written (and thus in light of colonial and British use of the term). The argument proceeds that the term refers to citizenship by right of birth in law, and is not limited to the Constitutional birthright citizenship established by Amendment XIV (but since the Constitution is clearly law, encompasses it.) Thus, contrary to your argument, the two main legal positions are either that "natural born citizen" is exactly the same as Amendment XIV's citizens born in the United States (that all citizens that are not "naturalized" in Amendment XIV are "natural born" in the sense of Article II), or that natural born citizens extends into Amendment XIV's "naturalized" citizens to include citizens who are not born in the United States but have citizenship by right of birth under statute law as well as those that do so under the Constitution (i.e., people born outside of the US in circumstances that Congress has determined merit citizenship, like children of US citizens.)
No, in fact, that makes no sense, since no one can be a citizen of the United States other than by an act of law, either the Constitution or the statute law. Citizenship is a product of laws, not a natural state.
It puts all kinds of qualifiers on when a person born out of wedlock to a US-citizen father becomes a citizen, requirements that do not exist for children of a citizen mother.
Wrong, it was held to be legitimate sex-based discrimination, rather than the impermissible kind. It clearly on its face discriminates based on sex, and the court did not rule that it does not.
Further, the discrimination at issue is the reverse of what you seem to portray: it was challenged because it made it harder for children of US fathers to establish citizenship than the near automatic qualification for children of US mothers. From the text of the decision:
"The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that 1409(a)
Yes, I am. In fact, I'm a stickler for the rule of law and decry Consequentialism wherever it crops up. I'm sorry you have a major problem with my post - I don't think those that place their own wants and needs above others by trying to justify their actions are 'slimy connivers', I think they're being disingenuous to the rest of the population, intellectually dishonest, and are contributing to the downfall of society, that's all.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Instead of sealing records, you'd think he'd want to head off all of the controversy by laying out exactly why the 'accusers' arguments are not supported by law without regardless of whether the documents are sealed.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
The conspiracy theorists will tell you that McCain was not born American either. Which you could then use the powers of your tinfoil hat to theorize that this election was ultimately about getting a non-native American into office. This would explain why Clinton did not press the issue.
Can we wait until after somebody claiming to be a religious person actually takes a shot at the president-elect before we condemn an entire ethnic group (rednecks) for cultivating an environment which produces our fictional assassin?
Judging by what a more-or-less sensible non-partisan Obama sounds like, and what an incredibly goofy left-wing tool Biden has shown himself to be, I'd say conservative nut-jobs would not only be among the last to shoot at Obama, they'd probably be among the first to take a bullet for him.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The US owned the Canal Zone but it was never part of the US; there are numerous court rulings on this. The distinction has substantial Constitutional significance (and not just as regards birthright citizenship). As far as citizesnship goes, there is a reason that there is a special retroactive law (see 8 USC 1403, and the associated notes) passed in 1952 granting citizenship to people born to US citizen parents in the Canal Zone.
Data is a plural word.
Then let it be plural.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Nono, the real conspiracy is that Obama is a cylon!
And I personally saw Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.
The last function is corruption/election rigging firewalling.
Imagine there's a corrupt governor in, oh, let's say Illinois. The governor decides that dead people, dogs, cats, and goldfish need the vote and has decided they all need to make the same choice -- they're very grateful for their suffrage after all. In the electoral college system, the only votes the governor can bring to the table are Illinois, while in a popular system, he could alter the entire outcome through his rigging.
Also, when there's a close election, you only have to do recounts in close states. Florida was a mess, but imagine how much worse a NATIONAL recount would've been. I don't think there's enough gov't officials in the US to supervise that.
Lastly, because of the firewall effect, states can have more independent election processes from other states since, at best, they're only altering the results from their states, not at a national level, which was their right to begin with.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Competing currencies are disallowed?! WHAT?! So much for the land of the free... In most of the sane world, if you want to trade in wads of chewing gum, you're perfectly allowed to do so - no-one will, because it's not a good idea, but you're most certainly welcome to try.
The proposal is to de facto abolish the electoral college by having states pass laws dictating that their electors votes match the popular vote--meaning that if a state has 100 electors, and the winner gets 60% of the popular vote, then 60 electors vote for the winner and 40 for the loser. It's not the case that all the state electors vote for the winner, giving him or her a unanimous victory in the electoral college.
It's a flawed proposal for several reasons, but it's not a liberal conspiracy. It's an attempt to eliminate the situation where someone wins the popular vote and loses the presidency.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The arguments I hear against ag. subsidies are about how the subsidies reduce the fair market value of the food. If you are a farmer in another country, it becomes impossible to compete.
Ag. subsidies are great for the US, but it does hurt the rest of the world's farmers.
While I have no opinion on the legality of his citizenship (conspiracy seems a bit far fetched - what motive?), how can a citizen "lack standing" to question the election of his government officials?
Because an ordinary citizen is not out anything because one person is president instead of another. An ordinary citizen has no damages so the court can provide no remedy. McCain would probably have standing to sue because he could claim that he was deprived of the presidential office and the court could provide him a remedy by disqualifying Obama. I can't think of anybody else who could really claim damages and therefore have standing to sue.
Thankyou! It seems so few people seem to understand this. I have nothing to add to your comment, but just wanted to post a reply to reinforce it.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
And she could not possibly be lying, because politicians/bureaucrats are completely trustworthy. (cough)
Of course not. She claims she has a valid birth certificate. Why would she claim that if she didn't? A reporter will ask to see it and she would be forced to provide it. If it comes out that she lied, her political career would be over. So that only leaves the possibility that there is a birth certificate but that it is faked. Unless someone can prove it is faked, it must be accepted as legitimate. Faking a birth certificate so that it appears legitimate would take a lot of work and a lot of people. It is always hard to keep secrets when many people are involved, so where is the whistleblower claiming he/she was forced to fake a government document?
I strongly agree with many of your posts and the points you make therein, but not this:
Breaking a law, even for 'a good cause' is never excusable
To me, this is too strong a line to take. In many cases it is good to break a law when that law is wrong. If you were on holiday in a country, and that country had passed a law (unbeknownst to you before you went) that all tourists must sacrifice their siblings to the great goat in the sky, would you do it, or would you break the law? Yes, it's an extreme and somewhat unrealistic example, but it's just an illustration. To me, there are several laws in different countries that I find morally reprehensible and will NOT follow them. Could it lead to anarchy if everyone did this? Yes... but that's why laws should (and usually are) created based on what the society views as right and correct - our own morals and ability to understand the morals of others (and potentially some sacrifices we must make, as long as they're "small" sacrifices (and again, that's is a human fudge factor that's hard to truly judge)) are what should stop us breaking laws, not the law in and of itself.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
The case of New York is particularly interesting because premeditated policy decisions may have exported crime to surrounding areas:
Why do you care? Seriously. I mean, if there were real problems with his citizenship that might make him ineligible, don't you think that the Clinton and McCain campaigns would have raised the issue? All the lawyering that's gone on in the last few elections shows that candidates are rarely shy about pursuing legal avenues to victory. All the points you list are either flat out wrong or based on legal interpretations as tortured as a tax resister's.
What do you get out of this? Does it comfort you to think that, if Obama's a bad president, you can feel smug in the knowledge that you knew he shouldn't have been president in the first place? I have trouble believing that you take seriously any question about Obama's eligibility.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Mod parent -1 pure, unfiltered horseshit.
He has released a state provided birth certificate proving that he was born in the U.S., and the state in question has come forward to validate it. He thus fulfills all the requirements of the 14th amendment to be considered a natural born citizen. College transcripts are irrelevant. Dual citizenship is irrelevant. He was not born in Kenya. He has proved otherwise.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Actually, your vote counts more with an electoral college than it would in a straight popular vote. Your vote only matters to the degree that it's the swing vote--meaning that you changing your vote would change the outcome of the election. Your odds of being the swing (more precisely, the statistical degree to which your vote is the swing vote) are higher with the electoral college.
In practice, the electors vote the way they were pledged to vote when they signed up--and they're selected to actually be electors based on that. You might recall a Democratic elector from the Midwest (Wisconsin?) who publicly stated that she would vote for Clinton regardless of the outcome of the primary, and was removed from the pool of electors. The vote of the electoral college is a formality, and anyone proposing differently is huffing chads.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Understatement of the year. Pudge is the hero of dumb fat fucks everywhere - in one of his journals he talks about how Obama has the least amount of experience of any candidate in 70 years, obviously forgetting who's in the White House right now. And his candidate in the primaries was Fred Thompson, who's public service consists of 12 years of legislative experience...exactly what Obama has.
Wooosh!
That was exactly my point. The government tried to reign in guns, 80% were never returned, and nothing bad happened.
Umm... yeh, I just re-read your post and now feel like a fool... sorry... that "wooosh" was well deserved.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Let's me summarize the argument.
1. Naturalized citizens are not natural-born citizens.
2. Citizenship by birthright does not guarantee natural-born citizenship.
3. The founders looked to what they considered the laws of nature when establishing the founding document.
4. A natural-born citizen is one that following the rules of nature (at the time of the Constitution) would be considered a US citizen.
5. People can be born in the US, but due to the laws of man, rather than the laws of nature are citizens (slaves born before 1866).
When it comes to natural-born citizen there is one, and only one state that is known and acknowledged, without argument, to be a natural-born citizen.
1. The child of two naturalized citizens that is born within the United States dominion is a natural-born citizen.
If you wish to read the article which had helped lead me to my conclusion it's here.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Picking a good candidate without a viable chance of winning is a stupid ideological stance in an ultimately practical situation. It's not a nice choice (to actually cast a vote for), it's delusional.
You'd figure that someone like this would be supremely interested in procedure, like understanding the merits of instituting a preference voting system over the third-party-quashing plurality system we've got.
That would be interesting indeed, but I can tell you it's not the best way to get stuff done. In France during the last couple of decades we've had a healthy dose of prime ministers who were from the other party as the president. Things still work, but not as efficiently. Mind you a constant tug o' war in power isn't the best way to get things done. See filibustering.
You just got troll'd!
Do you?
You can't prove a negative.
Nobody's seen his birth certificate except one judge who, for some strange reason, is keeping it hidden. Is this certificate fake? It's possible.
No, it's not possible, but I look forward to seeing 'The Obama Chronicles' being promoted by idiot conservatives.
I've seen that "lacks standing" excuse for dropping suits before, and it always amazed me how someone could "lack standing" to sue over an issue that directly affects them.
Yup. Like how they cowardly avoided a cut and dried ruling on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by ruling that the child's parent, Micheal Newdow, lacked standing because he only had custody for 10 days out of the month.
What's funny is that the same people pushing the "Obama isn't a citizen" story also pushed the "Clinton's killed Vince Foster and dozens of others" story. So if Hillary and Bill Clinton are ruthless murderers and are as secretive & ruthless as the KGB, how come they never used the citizenship arguments in the primaries, eh?
Shoes
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were smart guys. Why did they not choose a government based by the people, of the people and for the people, who chose not to throw shoes at at particular candidate?
And it would be a hoot and a half, with Larry King moderating.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Just as soon as you wear a sign that says:
I have a concealed carry permit. Muggers, please put your own gun away and give me a minutes warning so I have time to get out my gun, cock it, and take the safety off. Burglars, please call in advance and leave your own guns at home. Otherwise I wont be able to use my Tiger Stone, I mean my hand gun. Thanks!
Missing the point.
People are running around and claiming that dual-citizenship makes you ineligible to be president.
It takes another sovereign nation granting you citizenship to make you a dual citizen. And they can grant that with or without your permission, for any reason they choose.
So by that logic, the UK, Iran, The Galactic Empire, etc, could sabotage our presidential elections by declaring all of us citizens (making us the dreaded dual-citizen). If you can't see the fatal flaw in the dual-citizen argument after that you, well... see my grandfather post...
Congress, state legislatures, and local municipalities have all put laws in place that restrict who may own guns and what type of guns you may own. They have done this without any ammendments to the Constitution.
It is definitely plausible that any or all of those groups would try to change the electoral college in a similar manner.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
True.
Debatable, and insufficiently defined. Citizenship by Constitutional birthright undisputably is natural-born citizenship, citizenship by statutory birthright may or may not be (that's the principle area of dispute among serious scholars.)
That depends what you consider the founding document. There is some evidence of appeal to "laws of nature" in the Declaration of Independence, which is certainly a founding document of the United States of America, but there is certainly no such appeal in the Constitution (another "founding document"). The Constitution was written as a pragmatic legal document to address the manifest practical shortfalls in the preceding Articles of Confederation (yet another "founding document" of the USofA).
This interpretation is downright bizarre. The phrase "natural-born citizen" was a common legal term of art prior to the Constitution, and certainly did not mean "a citizen following the rules of nature", whatever that might be supposed to mean, it meant, in the English tradition, a citizen born within the allegiance of the sovereign, a category almost precisely coextensive with the 14th Amendment "born within the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and which might equivalently (at the time of writing) be framed as "a citizen by right of birth, rather than by naturalization".
The modern debate is, for the most part, between which of those two originally equivalent interpretations controls as the two diverge, particularly, in the light of statutory birthright citizenship conferred by Congress.
This makes no sense, and the example doesn't clarify it. What are you trying to say.
I should have known better than to follow that link. I'll never get that wasted time back.
Point taken. It seems even the supreme court believes that registration, licensing, permits, and fees do not qualify as any infringements on the right to bear arms. The fact that a random local judge here in upstate NY can deny me my right to bear a handgun because I haven't given him a sufficiently good reason flies in the face of the second amendment.
On one hand the process of the electoral college is well laid out in the constitution, on the other hand there are a few spots that are vague enough that congress could use to force everyone to allocate their own states' electors proportionally to the votes of that state. Though whether that would be for better or worse is its own subject of debate.
This is NEWS, because I bet a majority of people who, either were NOT taught this, or, while in school, didn't pay attention, don't realize the beauty of the electoral college. By having such a design, this gives states with a low population, a stake in the election. Otherwise, you would only see those running for office, spending all their time in NY, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, California, Texas and a couple other states. USA, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a democracy, but a representative republic. It's more of the checks & balances that the founding fathers put in to our form of government.
Wrong. The proposal, the National Popular Vote, is essentially exactly what GP describes. One might legitimately dispute GPs characterization of which states are likely to pass the proposal, but GPs characterization of what the proposal is.
Thanks for the correction.
The early presidents who were not "natural born" were US citizens at the time of the Constitution's adoption.
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
"We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
(cancel accidental modding)
I vote the odds when I sit at a blackjack table.
I vote my conscience when I stand in the voting booth.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
I think that's a bit telling that every high school kid is taught what the Electoral College is, and how it works -- but of course the President didn't know until he was a candidate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Only because the right wing is already rotten!
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Can we wait until after somebody claiming to be a religious person actually takes a shot at the president-elect before we condemn an entire ethnic group (rednecks) for cultivating an environment which produces our fictional assassin?
I hate to break it to you, but you only have to come to where I currently am to find a fairly large group of people who claim to be religious who would love to take a shot at Obama. I see them pretty much every day here and they aren't exactly quiet about their desires.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
But you'll follow a fascist whose primary drive is controlling your life more?
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
It's tempting to see everything the founding fathers did as wonderfully wise and perfect. But while they were quite amazingly far-sighted, they were also politicians cutting deals to get things done within the partisan realities of the day.
This is not far from the same thing. We just happen to view the deal-cutting through rose-colored glasses because those deals have resulted in one of the most durable and successful democratic nations in history.
And, it is always a good opportunity to review the principles behind those deals. The President was not intended to be a "direct representative of the people." That was the nightmare scenario for the founding fathers as they feared the "mob rule" of direct democracy.
The president today is very much the most powerful and direct representative of the people, but is this a reason to ditch the EC? No, quite the opposite--the stronger the office of the president gets, the more important it is to maintain some abstraction between that office and the mob of direct democracy.
It doesn't ensure the President is "representative of a diverse electorate" - it encourages the opposite; a President who can appeal to a few very narrow key demographics to push them over the top in a handful of states.
This is a common view of people who really only pay attention to the end of elections, where differences are magnified. But by the time a candidate has won a major party primary, all the truly niche or narrowly focused candidates have been weeded out. For example Ron Paul, for all his narrow fanatical support, did not even come close to winning his primary or the general election.
John McCain sought to distinguish himself from Obama by exploiting narrow issues, but that was AFTER he had already established himself as the Republican with the broadest national base of support.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I have co-workers that didn't know there were other candidates for president besides McCain and Obama...
That has far more to do with a corrupt and dishonest media than it does with democracy or our electoral system (or even the two parties). If the media actually covered the other candidates, or allowed them to participate in the media moderated and sponsored debates, people would know about them.
Really?? You guys have never heard of Hillary Clinton?
I think it's more likely that you're only thinking of the presidential election after the conventions. But in reality it started long before. How many major-party candidates were there for president this cycle? 2? No, it was actually over 15. It's just that most of them conceded their defeat well before November 5.
There were 3 televised debates between McCain and Obama. But, in the Democratic Primary alone there were 26 debates, 14 of which were televised on major networks, each with 5-8 participants. Just among the major party candidates there was a broad diversity of opinion from which the nation could choose, and the media covered it. I don't think it's the media's fault that most people ignore the primaries.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The funny thing is Obama DID appoint a Bush administration official, and it was a big one--Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Jesus was a Jew.
Not flaming against Christians or Jews, just a correcting.
Thank you for the compliment - I do try to offer reasoned comments and occasionally a funny post. You're correct that my stance is pretty absolute, but I agree that there are instances where civil disobedience are acceptable. One such is where the laws themselves are written 'against' the rights and freedoms we as humans hold dear. I would suggest that the scenario you offered fits my original exception "for any situations ... most dire."
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Bush was a two term governor of a large state before he was elected.
5 years as the 5th most powerful politician in the state of Texas (Texas constitution gives little power to the state governor). Prior to that, his resume consisted of drinking, skipping out on his Air Guard commitments, and driving companies into the ground in positions he was given by friends of his father. Every accomplishment in Bush's life has come from his last name. If he were George W. Smith, right now he'd be taking orders from a 17 year old assistant manager at a Burger King.
As opposed to Obama, who served 4 years in the U.S. Senate (from the 5th most populous state) and 8 years in the Illinois state senate (from a district with a higher population than the state of Alaska). Prior to that, he went to Columbia, was head of the Harvard law review, graduated magna cum laude, spent 3 years as a community organizer and taught Constitutional law for ten years. Obama earned all his accomplishments through intelligence, skill, and hard work - not based on his last name. Not even Bahgdad Bob would try to claim that Obama has less experience than Bush, much less Sarah Palin. But you do find Republicans doing this on a regular basis - like their wingnut merit badges will be revoked if they stop engaging in eye-popping double standards and situational ethics.
Who is the dumb fat fuck now?
Do you really want me to answer this question?
When you gamble that way you lose the delta between candidates. When George W. Bush is a candidate, the delta is huge. Feelin' it? Sucks pretty bad.
How about you game the vote like everyone else, but push for vote reform so that no one will have to?
Boy, did Al Gore lose his home state and the home state of the still popular sitting President to fight in the home state of George's brother?
I can vote my conscience and still fight for vote reform.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Not sure what you're trying to say there. Maybe that you weren't in a swing state? (You voted in Tennessee and Arkansas?)
In that scenario you can vote your conscience, sure. Sadly, people also do it in swing states.
I'm saying Al Gore ran a bad campaign. Nader voters don't figure in to it. Even losing Florida if he had won Tennessee or Arkansas he would have won the election.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
My main complaint is that they present themselves as authoritative
Not really; they're just so good at it, they've developed a very high reputation, but they've never presented themselves as authoritative. In fact, they noticed this problem themselves, and created The Repository of Lost Legends [*]. It includes articles written in their usual style, but false. The idea was to teach the moral that you should never take any information at face value, regardless of whoever says it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked. Common sense isn't all that common these days, is it? [**] [*] Yes, the acronym for "The Repository Of Lost Legends" spells TROLL. Eat your heart out, GNAA. [**] Speaking of common sense, you think they would've killed that stupid 90s-era JavaScript hack to "disable" right-clicking already. Anybody with half a brain and the keys Ctrl, A, and C on their keyboard (or the "Edit" menu on their browser window) can easily circumvent this. </rant>.
I dare you to make less sense!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
also, what is his favorite color?
Yes, yes, I know.
The secret muslim socialist who was born in Kenya and is in league with Teh Terrorists and was really the 20th 9/11 hijacker and who, as a 7 year old child, helped William Ayers plant bombs, and who also is the secret son of George Soros will personally dig up all the bodies of the Founders and sodomize them on a pile of Bibles is going to destroy us all.
He's also a Scary Brown Person with a funny name and big ears.
Oh, the huge manatee!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
"This is a constitutional republic, not a dictatorship."
Got Habeas Corpus?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Hal, thanks for 2006, 2008, and for 2010 and 2012, as well.
Palin as President? In the words of Chimpy McCokespoon, Shoe Target in Chief: "Bring it on!"
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
did you copy that from wikipedia? seriously though, very informative, if obscure...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Please god, you fucking moron. Please designate me as your foe so I won't see any more of your god damned crap. I've seen quite enough of your presidential stupidity over the last going on eight years.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
No, he's telling you that pudge is a moron--and I confirm that on my own experience with him. That fool is probably the #1 reason /. has been going to hell.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Ah. That's a rationale behind vote spoiling that I'd never heard before.
I don't really think he is that scary either. He has about the same build as I and big ears are not really all that frightening in my opinion. My goodness, forgive me. I forgot the protocol!
MSM Directive 4873.47(a)
Anyone who voices an opinion that could be contrived as not supportive of Mr. Obama is automatically a racist and afraid of Non-White Skinned People.
But seriously, do you honestly think Mr. Obama is not a career politician full of empty promises and BS rhetoric?
Except for the fact - fact, mind you - that both his grandmother, and the Kenyan government INSIST he was born in Kenya. She claims she was there when he was born. I believe (but am not certain) there's also a half brother and half sister that claim the same.
He simply needs to produce a valid (not digitally-edited) birth certificate from Hawaii to prove the wingnuts TOTALLY wrong, so why doesn't he?
The only documentation he's provided is a certificate of live birth, dated DAYS after his birth.
-Styopa
As far as I know, you can choose to trade in bubble gum.
"Why do you care?"
That's probably the most insightful question asked in any of the responses I got to my post.
I care because both parties have shown themselves willing to tear up the Constitution wholesale when it suits them. Bush on a number of issues over the past 8 years, and this would be proof (to me) that the Left and the bastions of Political-Correctness would be willing to hand the presidency over to someone just to ameliorate their pervasive white guilt.
To some, he looks like the the 'great American success story'.
To me, I simply wonder how likely it is that the son of a globetrotting tramp (I mean, c'mon have you seen his family history?) can *somehow* manage to scrape together the serious $$ to go to Harvard, and then weasel his way up in the MOST CORRUPT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT since Tammany Hall, be selected as the 'great white hope' in 2004 when he's barely even a senator (you don't think it was coincidence he got the PRIME speech of the Kerry convention, did you?), be thoughtful enough to write a book before he even was anything significant, and then manage to overrun one of the most powerful political machines (the Clintons) the Dems have seen since Kennedy?
Sure, he could be on a mission from God. I suppose that's possible.
I don't gain anything from questioning his glory. In fact, I get a lot of quite wonderful comments from his supporters describing in detail what a horrible human being I am for even doubting him. So if you ask 'what does he get out of this?', ask yourself as well, 'why is he willing to put up with this if the evidence seems so flimsy?'.
-Styopa
The Electoral College was something of a necessity back in the day simply because of the lack of advanced communication. You ran in to a big problem of how do all the votes and the information get back to one place. I mean I suppose you could send all the phsyical ballots but that is riddled with problems (like the fact that they'd differ per state) and security risks. Well another option is to just send a guy to say how the people voted. That is more or less what the Electoral College system is. You elect a person who is going to go vote for who you want.
Ok, however that is all rather unnecessary now. We have instant communications. It is rather easy to accurately know how many votes a candidate received and indeed news networks report it all the time.
It is a huge relic, unfortunately I don't think it is going away. Part of the problem is that usually the popular candidate wins, so people just don't care. Had we actually had the Kerry situation, well then maybe people would give a shit. As it is nobody seems to. Heck, most of the Gore supporters just whined about how Bush "Stole" the election rather than concentrating on it as a reason to get rid of the Electoral College.
Since it is in the Constitution and needs an amendment to change, it'll take a lot of popular support before it can happen, and people just don't care. Thus I think we are stuck with it.
I would do that, but then again we in Aust were sensible ebough to get rid of most of the guns in our society years ago.
Why are you so scared you need to have a gun?
You do reaise that is complete rubbish dont you.
The gun murder rate in the US is much higher than countries where guns are strictly controlled.
When the majority of guns are removed there are less guns for criminals to steal, therefore less guns in the hands of criminals.
Gun ownership seems to be some kind of overcompensation to me.
"MSM Directive 4873.47(a)
Anyone who voices an opinion unsubstantiated by factual information that could be contrived as not supportive of Mr. Obama is automatically a racist and afraid of Non-White Skinned People."
Fixed your typo!
HTH!
HAND!!!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Translation: you got pwned, so you respond with lies, gross distortions, and more lies. Say hi to the Whigs for us on your way out.
You're getting a lot of "you're a bad person" because you're repeating lies, half-truths, distortions, and mendacious interpretations that make us all dumber for reading them. It's difficult to believe that you're not doing so with ill intent, to simply smear a political figure that you dislike. It's difficult to believe that you take those points seriously when they're the intellectual equivalent of arguments that the moon landing was a hoax.
Perhaps it's wrong to assume that your intent is perverse, but from the perspective of the vast majority with some minimal standards for logic and plausibility, it's the simplest explanation.
My question was asked to see if you had a serious motive, which it would seem you do. Yes, the story of how Obama got to be president is remarkable (or so implausible as to be suspicious), but if you follow it without looking for conspiracy markers, you can see how it happened. A lot of it was hard work, a lot of it was luck and knowing the right people at the right time, and a lot of it was intelligent political strategizing. Not a little bit of it was his opponents underestimating him--Clinton lost to him because her campaign was awful, full of competing egotists expecting a coronation to precede cushy administration posts.
There'll be more than enough real stuff to criticize Obama on once he's sworn in. The conspiracy crap just obscures that fact.
BTW, the answer to how Obama paid for Harvard is: student loans. It happens all the time.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Here's an interesting tidbit about the Birth Certificate non-issue.
Someone tracked down the birth announcement in the Honolulu paper. She then tracked down what was the procedure AT THE TIME of Obama's birth to GET A BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT in the paper.
Briefly, the hospitals collected all the live birth data and info and forwarded it to the Dept. of Vital Records, once a week, and the local papers picked up the copy provided by Vital Records and published it.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed by the "OMG! Scary Black Person with a Funny Name!!!!ELEVENTYONE" crowd.
He won. He's the President.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Ah, so your vote belongs to other people and not yourself.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
"MSM Directive 4873.47(a) Anyone who voices an opinion unsubstantiated by factual information that could be contrived as not supportive of Mr. Obama is automatically a racist and afraid of Non-White Skinned People."
Keep it coming, your true colors are really coming through now. Using that logic if I were to say Mr. Obama eats old candy canes during the month of January, smokes three packs of cigarettes a day, hates walks on the beach and loves using Internet Explorer and Vista I would be a racist and afraid of Non-White Skinned People. Sorry chief, just because one is critical (unsubstantiated or otherwise) of a person that is of a different skin color does not make you a racist. In fact, this type of belief system is racism in and of itself. Sadly, this is what the "PC Movement" has brought us.
Furthermore, you were the one spewing unsubstantiated opinions. I was merely stating my predictions based on historical evidence.
Ethnically, not so much in a religious sense. However, today he'd be considered Palestinian, although he was sent to deliver the gospel to the Children of Israel (not the same as the current Israel of today)
You must campaign for an amendment to the constitution allowing the government to regulate arms.
(...)
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there is a significant fraction of NRA membership who would support your measure if moderate. Give them the chance.
As I suggested in a previous debate, at minimum the following needs to be added to the second amendment: "btw, only the feds can have nukes, mmkay?"
The wording may need some work.
sigs are hazardous to your health
versus the State of Hawaii who says they have Obama's original birth certificate. As for your splitting hairs over the statement: Why would Hawaii have an original Kenyan birth certificate in their birth records? At most the would have a copy only if Obama's mother registered his birth after the fact. But this option was not available until 1982. The original birth certificate with a date of 1961 would mean that original birth certificate he has there record proves he was born there.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I imagine it's very unlikely that I'll be able to convince you of the practical need for strategic voting, but let's give it a try. Here's a metaphorical race meant to illustrate, if extremely, the impact of conscience voting in a plurality system:
Your group of 100 people gets to choose a dessert, which you then must eat:
Before folks cast their ballots a straw poll reveals, dismayingly, nearly even odds between sprouts and soap.
I would vote for brussel sprouts rather than have to eat frickin' soap.
We've been eating soap for the last 8 years. Idealistic conscience voting helped us to waste $567 billion tax dollars in Iraq. So far. And the list of how this administration has been poison for our country only starts there.
Anyway, the matter becomes moot if we can institute a system where we can rank our preferences. We should focus on that.
I dare you to make less sense!
(Paid for by the George Soros Foundation to Undermine the United States of America and Turn It Into A Socialist Hell Like France Or Something!)
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Yeah. You don't want to accidentally outlaw smoke detectors, for instance.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Your dichotomy isn't very honest. In reality our choices were:
Donkey Turd
Elephant Turd
Soap
The American people are tired of turds, but as long as they try to game the system that's what they'll get. My god, if enough people voted Soap the major parties might run something more palpable like roadkill or week old sushi.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Sir, I double dare you to make less sense!
I see.
So I'm saying we need to work hard together to institute some kind of Preference Voting.
Sadly, the highest profile advocacy group, FairVote, seems stuck on IRV. Not the best system, but, hey, it still beats Plurality.
Right, but you implied that even if he had been born on U.S. soil that his mother's immigration status might somehow taint his claim to U.S. citizenship, which is not the case.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Ok, what? Or perhaps I should phrase it thusly: omgwtf, r u sirius?
A) Why have an opinion if you're not going to admit that it's your opinion? I've never been afraid to say I was wrong on something, and it's an opinion, not a fact. We're all free to change our minds every once in a while.
B) What does my having posted under my account say to you? (Why am I even replying to an AC? Nobody'll come back to this post later to see if I responded I'm sure...) To me it means karma to burn, so what does it matter if I got flamed on a response? Not that I've had a bad response yet from more than one or two people posting under their accounts. You'll notice I've been lurking on /. for a while...
C) What does skin have to do with ANY of this? Or is that why you are afraid to post under YOUR own name?
2^3 * 31 * 647
Switzerland is both a direct democracy *and* a federation, and I don't think it has been ruled by a mob.
>Regardless of whether he was born in the Hawaii,
He was.
>I question whether he gave up his citizenship to attend school in Indonesia, as has been posited.
There is not even a legal mechanism by which an unemancipated minor can give up his citizenship, nor is it possible for a person under the age of twenty-three to lose his citizenship in the manner Berg describes.
> [I]f we are to be a country bound by the rule of law, that issue must be resolved.
Please describe the "issue" by making your case in the context of the rule of law.
Are you suggesting that President-elect Obama has not complied with some law or lawful order?
Or do you believe he must respond to every baseless fabrication that targets him?
He proved that he was born in the USA, and that proof has been substantiated. What more do you think he can do?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There's more solid proof that Obama was born in the U.S. in this one article, BY A SKEPTIC OF HIS U.S. BIRTH, and is a natural born citizen, than there is against his natural born birth status in ALL of the utter BS spewed
Evidence, not proof, evidence. And, you are correct. After the Clinton campaign brought this up during the Primary, what would have been really nice is if Obama, with a derisive roll of the eyes towards those who deserve it, had simply said, "somebody take a reporter and get a copy of my birth certificate so we can end this idiocy." And then ended it.
But no, we have the usual non-response "ignore it and it will go away" attitude that we have learned to know and love under the current administration. His grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and he has some obvious ties there. Could her memory be faulty? Sure. But, since the issue has been raised, and it is one of those definitively defined things in that pesky little inconvenience known as the Constitution, it should be resolved by some Federal non-partisan authority.
Oh, and a document of live birth from Hawaii is not proof of a natural born citizen. It and a birth certificate are two different documents.
So, yeah, while I think the preponderance of evidence indicates Obama's natural-birth citizenship, I would have preferred a different response.
Thus far, my opinion is getting to be: meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Which isn't exactly true. The totalitarian government of "Brave New World" was much nicer than the totalitarian government of "1984".)
Well done! Way to COMPLETELY IGNORE the facts of the discovery made by a skeptic about how birth announcements were handled in the early 1960s by the newspapers in Hawaii and continue to float the COLB diversion.
You've a future at Fox News Channel!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Congratulations on being a status-quo dumb ass. As I said, in general summation, I believe it to be a non-issue, especially the dual-citizen lawsuit nonsense. It is not the issue but the handling of it that is the problem. It did not show any of the "change", openness, decisive resolution, or good statesmanship that Obama promised to bring us. Judging by your ridiculous and presumably pejorative Fox News Channel comment, you likely are not a fan of the insular secrecy of the Bush administration but here you are acting outraged that people (who absolutely have an axe to grind) would question the secrecy and stonewalling of the issue by Obama when it should be so damn easy to resolve. A two minute phone call would do it.
Ron Paul lost. Get over it.
When the majority of guns are removed there are less guns for criminals to steal, therefore less guns in the hands of criminals.
Explain to me why gun crime has skyrocket in the UK since their ban on handguns.
Crime is the result of poverty and opportunity, if you take away the guns there will still be crime, and there will still be gun crime. The fact that in Japan they do it with knives instead of guns doesn't make me feel the slightest bit better. Maybe I'm just a pragmatist, but I think we'd do more good in the world solving root causes than blaming inanimate objects for violence.
Over compensation for what?
Overcompesation for;
"Certain" Inadequacies