Come Up With A Good Question to Ask John McCain

[Brainster]

The Naturalization Act of 1795 supersedes the 1790 Act for one and the citizen must be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and be "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same." (Supporting the Patriot Act and The Iraq war are both unconstitutional.)

Also the Constitution makes clear that a President has to be a natural born citizen, no mention of Naturalized Citizen becoming eligible for president.



..and again from above:


So McCain is not eligible.

Any Constitutional lawyers here?

You're wrong. But then you're a Ron Paul supporter, so I suppose you're used to that.

 

[HereticHulk]

You're wrong. But then you're a Ron Paul supporter, so I suppose you're used to that.

I didn't write the Constitution homeskillet. How is the Constitution wrong?

Don't get upset because your candidate is not eligible and will be forced to quit soon. Don't worry he is still eligible for his Senate seat.

BTW what has McCain been right on?

........lest you forget?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

 

[Brainster]

Could I seriously suggest that you repost this question in the "Social Issues & Current Events" forum? Or in "Politics"? If the moderators ask why, then I'll back you up.

You're just getting joke questions, whereas you have the responsiblity of putting to the test a man who may very well be the next president. Good luck with that.

And, seriously, let me answer the question in the OP.

I'd pressure him on his ideas about teaching creationism. You are in a position to raise this question. You can't quite be happy with his answer about it. He surely doesn't ask you to question him in order that you should be yes-men. And finally, I for one would like to see you rational republicans sticking up for what is reasonable.

You were (I think) selected to do this thing because you represent the rationalist republican bloggers. The people who selected you didn't just go eenie-meenie-minie-mo, did they? You were asked to talk to McCain because you are an intelligent representative of a particular group of conservatives whom we might call the "rationalist tendency". So go and represent them.

I'd be willing to go in this direction, but we've got to hone in on the right question. In other words, it does me little good to ask him to reiterate his stance on teaching creationism in the schools as we know what the answer to that is; that he thinks it should be up to the local boards. So it has to be more than just that. Is there a particular case pending regarding this?

I got in on the blogger calls because I was one of the first conservative bloggers to endorse McCain and because I have a long-standing relationship with some of the people involved in his campaign.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In other words, it does me little good to ask him to reiterate his stance on teaching creationism in the schools as we know what the answer to that is; that he thinks it should be up to the local boards. So it has to be more than just that. Is there a particular case pending regarding this?

Usually, yes there is.

And the point is, surely, not just to ask him what he thinks. He could do that himself.

I got in on the blogger calls because I was one of the first conservative bloggers to endorse McCain and because I have a long-standing relationship with some of the people involved in his campaign.

I see. Nonetheless, you are a representative rationalist conservative invited to help McCain --- please use that advantage.

---

I would add again, you're probably in the wrong forum. If I am the only person taking you seriously, then the next thing that happens is that the Four Horsemen ride forth.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nonsense? WTF are you talking about?

Well in case you didn't understand, let me clarify this for you.

When I said "nonsense" I was talking about your post, which I quoted.

This would be obvious to most people by the way that I quoted your post and then described it as nonsense.

But for those of more delicate understanding I am always willing to explain.

What I meant, when I called your post nonsense, was that your post was nonsense.

In describing you post as nonsensical, I meant that it had a nonsensical quality, i.e. it was nonsense.

Your post was nonsense.

Do you now see what I meant when I called your post "nonsense"?

If not, let me clarify it for you. I MEANT THAT YOUR POST WAS FREAKIN' NONSENSE.

Now, admit it like a man. You knew that that was what I meant the first time I said it, didn't you? The point that I was trying (wrongly or rightly) to convey, was that I thought that your post was nonsense. You know that, don't you?

 

[latent aaaack]

I don't know if McCain's position on this is known:

"Giuliani wants to increase the size of the military to better fight 'the war on terror.' Would you increase the size of the military or increase the amount of resources allocated to the military and if so by how much in an approximate ball bark estimate?"

I want to know how much he's going to do to waste more resources on war that we need in the US on infrastructure, to throw at economic problems, and etc remembering what happened to the USSR (yeah, yeah apples and oranges).

 

[leftysergeant]

I would like to know whether he has ever been evaluated or undergone counselling for PTSD.

If not, I would seriously worry about his mental stability.

I do not worry as much about a combat veteran who has felt a need to see the shrink and who went throw a good counselling program, just to be sure he knew himself and was sure he was doin g as well as he felt he was.

It's the guy who needs to go, but doesn't that scares me.

 

[Liszt]

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

It must be hard for you to watch a Pacific WWII movie. When most people think of Japs, Gooks and Krauts, they aren't thinking of Masi Oka or Heidi Klum - they're thinking of WWII and/or the Vietnam War - and even here, only the North Vietnamese.

It must be hard for you to watch ABC World News, too. Or read Peanuts.

The technical term for this response is "reframing". Take the original point - in this case, racist remarks made by a presidential candidate - and rather then answer the question (which was essentially "should a racist be president"?), reframe the point - in this case, personalise it with "It must be hard for you..." etc., to make it appear that the question doesn't need to be answered, and also to misdirect.

If you wish to learn how to do this without being caught, I suggest this book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleight-Mouth-Robert-B-Dilts/dp/0916990435

 

[Richard Masters]

Douche. He's considered a hero because once the North Vietnamese found out his father was Commander in Chief, Pacific Command, they offered to let him go free to 'show they are merciful' - but McCain insisted on first in, first out, and wouldn't leave unless all the people who had been there longer than him were set free too. They wouldn't, so McCain stayed a POW for nearly 5 more years.

I actually didn't know this. Thanks for the information.

Still doesn't explain why he is intent on keeping us in Iraq longer, though.

I guess if your toolbox consists of weapons, the solution to everything looks like war.

 

[Richard Masters]

Douche. He's considered a hero because once the North Vietnamese found out his father was Commander in Chief, Pacific Command, they offered to let him go free to 'show they are merciful' - but McCain insisted on first in, first out, and wouldn't leave unless all the people who had been there longer than him were set free too. They wouldn't, so McCain stayed a POW for nearly 5 more years.

That's why he's considered a hero.

Of course, don't forget that his mission was to destroy a power plant in a country that had never done anything to us. I think the technical term for this is 'an act of terrorism'.

I guess that's why he really has such a soft spot for terrorists in Guantanamo.

 

[steverino]

I would like to know whether he has ever been evaluated or undergone counselling for PTSD.

If not, I would seriously worry about his mental stability.

I do not worry as much about a combat veteran who has felt a need to see the shrink and who went throw a good counselling program, just to be sure he knew himself and was sure he was doin g as well as he felt he was.

It's the guy who needs to go, but doesn't that scares me.

Damn. I NEVER agree with you, and here I COMPLETELY agree with you.
I think either way McCain would simply say he was seen by doctors upon his release and passed tests, both physical and psychological. I'm just saying I think that would be his answer, but I am curious now that you mention it to what extent he has, over the years, been seen and evaluated by qualified psychiatrists.

 

[steverino]

You are getting ahead of yourself.

According to the Naturalization Law of 1790, "... the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

I don't know about the minutiea of this law, but I get the feeling that if Hillary's pregnant mom went to have a look at the Niagara Falls, and Hillary popped out of her vagina p) on the Canadian side, she would still be an American citizen.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't know about the minutiea of this law, but I get the feeling that if Hillary's pregnant mom went to have a look at the Niagara Falls, and Hillary popped out of her vagina p) on the Canadian side, she would still be an American citizen.

Not a natural born citizen which is the requirement of the US Constitution for POTUS.

 

[Cleon]

Not a natural born citizen

Yes, she would.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes, she would.

It seems so.

Persons Born Outside the United States to Citizen Parents:

This bill clarifies that the term “natural born Citizen” includes children born outside the United States to citizen parents. This provision provides comfort and certainty to members of the American military and foreign services, as well as expatriate families, that their children, too, are eligible to run for president. These children are no less qualified than children born on American soil, and they should not be treated differently. Of course, children born to American citizens abroad would only be eligible to run for president if they satisfied the fourteen year residency requirement in addition to the “natural born” requirement.

Support for the position that the term “natural born Citizen” should include children born outside the United States to citizen parents is particularly well articulated in a law review article by Jill A. Pryor entitled The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. This article argues that “any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.”

S. 2128 [108th]: Natural Born Citizen Act



Opps, this legislation proposed in 2004 never became law.

What to think now? If it was already so, why would they need a law to make it so?

Now we have a quandary.

 

[Cleon]

It seems so.

Yep.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yep.

As long as one ignores the law.

 

[Cleon]

As long as one ignores the law.

Nope.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nope.

Did you read the bill I posted that did not become law?

 

[Cleon]

Jerome,

I'm not going to dignify this with a lengthy response, for two reasons:

#1, it's a derail.


#2, and more importantly, you're wrong. You're simply completely and utterly wrong.

Mere words cannot describe the among of sheer wrongness you are displaying with this "argument." Even the very word, wrong, doesn't contain enough wrong in it to actually encompass the vastness of the wrong you are presenting.

This is roughly akin to the goobers who run around claiming that we don't really have to pay income taxes, without the legal ramifications.