The problem with cases like these is that holistic solutions are never really possible. People will almost invariably side with the child but what they fail to appreciate is that what's acceptable and what's not is a purely relative thing (here assuming that the parents only had the best interest in mind and that this stunt is not is direct contradiction with the rest of the child's upbringing).
For example, there are tribal practices, involving children, in places like Africa that westerners would immediately condemn.
Parents may vary wildly in their habits of bringing up their children, but child abuse is a little bit like porn or art, in that most of the time, you know it when you see it. In this case, I believe these actions had a good intention (the long term safety of the kid by not trusting strangers), but there's no question in my mind that this was child abuse. |
|
|
|
First Atheist Terrorist...? "But what about the Crusaaaades!!!11!!11???"
Only about a million more atheist terrorist caused deaths before these are comparable. (Three million on the high end of estimates.) Today I Learn: Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pol Pot.. Were NOT atheists... Thank you for your edited enlightenment   Fair point, I stand corrected. I have seen people making the mistake of forgetting the past too often, no matter the subject. At least you know their names, not so sure about our new younger instagram generation...  Well, I wasn't considering them at first because their murder wasn't a function of their atheism, it was just a coincidence that they were murderous tyrants and atheists. Their murderous reigns were primarily political in nature aimed at the subjugation of political classes or parties that would threaten their political power. That is the opposite of this Chapel Hill situation (OSTENSIBLY) where the indication is he shot Muslims for religious reasons. That's the slant all the your picture posts are taking, as to whether or not that bears out, time will tell. It's not like the media's knee-jerk reaction has ever been wrong before, right? |
|
|
|
I started a thread on Jeb Bush's flub of dumping all his e-mails on the internet "in the name of transparency." Problem was those e-mails contained the personally identifiable information of Florida residents: names, addresses, and in some cases SSNs, which makes those poor people targets for identity theft. Pretty careless move for someone who wants to be President. Anyway, thought you'd like that in this thread too, since this is kind of a master trove of materials. A trove of 250,000 emails released by prospective 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush includes the sensitive personal information of several Florida residents, leaving them vulnerable to identity thieves.
A scan of the email dump by technology blogs The Verge and Gizmodo revealed names, emails and in some cases, Social Security numbers of Bush's correspondents. Many appear to be normal Florida residents unaware their messages to the then-governor would eventually become public.
The tech blogs redacted the personal information in their posts.
Bush was already in the spotlight Tuesday for acknowledging in an e-book that he spent "30 hours a week" answering email as governor, but tech blogs were taking far greater interest in the details of the email dump by the afternoon.
Many posts were critical of Bush, who is expected to be a major contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
"Even if most of these emails are subject to Sunshine Law disclosure, a public request for specific information is not the same as a huge, indiscriminate data dump being made for political reasons," wrote T.C. Sottek with The Verge, which first reported the presence of Social Security numbers in the trove.
"At minimum, it shows a serious ignorance of the volume of sensitive information in the records and a carelessness about their disclosure — not a good look for someone who may want to sit in the White House," Sottek wrote.
At the time of this post, the messages still included some Social Security numbers, leaving individuals vulnerable to identity theft. Some messages also included sensitive personal stories, and many explicitly ask that their contents do not become public.
A note on Bush's site said he was posting the emails "in the spirit of transparency."
"Emails kept me connected to Floridians and focused on the mission of being their governor," Bush said in a statement on the site. "Some are funny; some are serious; some I wrote in frustration. But they're all here so you can read them and make up your own mind."
|
|
|
|
First Atheist Terrorist...? "But what about the Crusaaaades!!!11!!11???"
Only about a million more atheist terrorist caused deaths before these are comparable. (Three million on the high end of estimates.) Today I Learn: Mao Zedong, Stalin, Pol Pot.. Were NOT atheists... Thank you for your edited enlightenment Fair point, I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
I'm just posting so you're not the only one posting in your own thread about this recent surge of atheist terrorism. It makes you look a little less like a resentment-fueled christian if other people post here too. You are welcome. Everyone is, as usual. Although I do have a habit of updating my own thread instead of creating multiple threads of a similar subject. I used to edit a post, but realized changing a post was not true to its time stamp or fair to people only reading the very last post, missing an updated post if the thread goes to page two. So yes, there is a method to my madness. Enjoy your stay and your vigorous participation on the subject at hand: "Anti-theist kills to prove the world religions bring killers together!" I think everyone posts in their own thread, and making similar threads on the same topic doesn't make any sense. Clutters the forum and makes it hard to follow a discussion if it's in several places. (Does anyone do that?) It was just funny to see all the ATTENTION GRABBING PICTURE POSTS in close succession with no one else commenting in between. Looked a little desperate to make a counter point. But as I took so long posting my joke in the first place that other people posted before me, I removed that comment, as it was no longer accurate. |
|
|
|
First Atheist Terrorist...? "But what about the Crusaaaades!!!11!!11???"
Only about a million more atheist terrorist caused deaths before these are comparable. (Three million on the high end of estimates.) |
|
|
|
Clown level: Krusty. A trove of 250,000 emails released by prospective 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush includes the sensitive personal information of several Florida residents, leaving them vulnerable to identity thieves.
A scan of the email dump by technology blogs The Verge and Gizmodo revealed names, emails and in some cases, Social Security numbers of Bush's correspondents. Many appear to be normal Florida residents unaware their messages to the then-governor would eventually become public.
The tech blogs redacted the personal information in their posts.
Bush was already in the spotlight Tuesday for acknowledging in an e-book that he spent "30 hours a week" answering email as governor, but tech blogs were taking far greater interest in the details of the email dump by the afternoon.
Many posts were critical of Bush, who is expected to be a major contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
"Even if most of these emails are subject to Sunshine Law disclosure, a public request for specific information is not the same as a huge, indiscriminate data dump being made for political reasons," wrote T.C. Sottek with The Verge, which first reported the presence of Social Security numbers in the trove.
"At minimum, it shows a serious ignorance of the volume of sensitive information in the records and a carelessness about their disclosure — not a good look for someone who may want to sit in the White House," Sottek wrote.
At the time of this post, the messages still included some Social Security numbers, leaving individuals vulnerable to identity theft. Some messages also included sensitive personal stories, and many explicitly ask that their contents do not become public.
A note on Bush's site said he was posting the emails "in the spirit of transparency."
"Emails kept me connected to Floridians and focused on the mission of being their governor," Bush said in a statement on the site. "Some are funny; some are serious; some I wrote in frustration. But they're all here so you can read them and make up your own mind."
In the spirit of transparency, I am releasing your social security numbers to the internet! |
|
|
|
NY Times: Rand Paul Seeks Middle (Sorry, Dad)...
Over the past few months, Mr. Paul has been seeking to convince mainstream Republicans that he is a team player. In states like Iowa that will hold the crucial early nominating contests, he has been bringing into the fold veteran party strategists who are laying new groundwork where his father’s operation wreaked havoc when they seized control of state parties and created a bitter rift.
Before the November elections, party leaders approached Mr. Paul to ask if he would help work against libertarian candidates who were drawing support away from Republicans in Senate races where a few thousand votes could make the difference.
Mr. Paul agreed without much reluctance, top Republicans said. He filmed several ads for the United States Chamber of Commerce on behalf of Republican candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina. Republicans ended up taking two of those three seats away from Democrats.
Mr. Paul’s political action committee also spent $100,000 to help save the distressed campaign of Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, a target of Tea Party activists.
Harnessing the intense grass-roots energy that Ron Paul followers bring is something the Rand Paul campaign acknowledges it has to manage delicately. Jesse Benton, an adviser who has worked for both Pauls, said the expectations of the base could always be better managed.
“Their energy is so crucial, and you legitimately love and respect them so much for their dedication,” he said. “But because they care so much and they’re so passionate, they require a lot of attention and a lot of tending that does suck up campaign energy that could be used for other purposes.” (Some strategists said they sometimes have to warn overeager volunteers not to do anything too aggressive, such as covering an entire neighborhood in campaign signs and leaflets.)
... More... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/politics/paul-seeks-middle-sorry-dad.html?_r=1 The beginnings of what I was afraid of. Party politics before principles. |
|
|
|
There wouldn't be any war if there were no soldiers. It's that simple.
Overly simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. Curious. How do you figure? Can you name a single war that was fought without them? <edit> Just so there's no question as to what we are talking about: War: War must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and operational art within a broad military strategy subject to military logistics. Soldier: A soldier is one who fights as part of an organized land-based armed forces. I'll explain my thinking, as I offered a conclusion without the reasoning before. It seems like a semantic game. "Soldiers are necessary to fight war, therefore if there are no soldiers, there cannot be war." Semantically and logically, I think the statement is accurate, but I think it loses applicability in the real world. Everyone's goal ostensibly is to end war, but getting rid of soldiers won't end war because soldiers aren't what cause war. To end war, you have to address the root causes: cultural differences, a lack of empathy, the violent tendency of mankind, and nationalistic fervor, among other things, are the root causes of war. Your statement makes it sounds like the cause to effect would be listed as soldiers ---> war, instead of the violent tendency of man ---> war. If we eliminated all the soldiers, mankind would not suddenly be peaceful, and the soldiers would return instantly once there is a cause for a new nationalistic fervor. You are quite correct when you state that soldiers are not the cause of war, but this was not my point. It is also quite true that every human being has the inherent ability to be selfish and despicable. My point is that without the support of the war machine we are extremely limited to the extent of violence and destruction we are capable of inflicting upon others. Now, while you and I, and most everyone, would like to live in peace and see an end put to war once and for all, it is the elite who conspire for and profit from its continued use. While I know it's just a pipe dream and it won't solve all our problems, this is why I'd like to see an end to standing armies, because without them the ability to wage war is extremely diminished. Very fair. In order to eliminate standing armies though, you have to eliminate people's perceptions for the need of one. That's the underlying reason we have them, politicians whipping us into a fury or a fear of people who are different than us, and would harm us if we ever let our guard down or stopped spending money on war machines. |
|
|
|
The UN was made for one purpose, and so far it has succeded in it: preventing a third world war, fought with nukes. That is how the security council was selected, and the purpose of the veto rights. Small-scale wars were considered unavoidable. Stuff like UNESCO is just fluffy bonus programs that don't hurt the great powers.
Global government? Fine for me if it was democratic and extremely decentralized... but that's not what someone like Gates has in mind, and illusionary in the current ideological climate. What he wants is the realistic version: a capitalist oligarchy with himself in a place in the politburo.
Bullshit, un was formed to create a world army for the elites once again. You really need stop sipping the cool aid and look and think for yourself because all media as been controlled by the mafia since 1940s when they brought it all up. You've lived all your life in a era where its all controlled and I mean all. Nothing you see or read or programmed at school is true. Its all double speak! Have a look and think for yourself what the un as done in the past and is pushing for! Its not peace! And they are the one with the armies that go into all these war zones in the guise of bringing peace! Army's do not bring peace! Wake up and smell the roses and stop drinking the bullshit coolaid! This is all probably too heavy for the people here because your obviously nowhere near opening your eyes to the truth. But remember, even in a minority of 1, the truth is still the truth! Also remember when your thinking about these things, even if your not thinking completely correctly, your still a danger to the few at the top because you are thinking! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BHc8cdL9xQkSnap out of the daze your all under! So sad that this site is swamped by people who don't understand the importance of block chain technology! No government! Period is the only answer! People power! Otherwise, we are all fucked! No matter where your from if these sick fucks get what they want! It's hard to take your point on global conspiracy seriously when you can't master the difference between "your" and "you're." Get real, you know what it means and stop picking on semantics. Its just another case of people using the easy way out and labeling people instead of taking on the difficult challenge! No offence but it one of the biggest problems with society and why people who may not have great skills in language (anything derived from the Vatican's Latin is satanic anyways be it English, German or whatever) and belittle them instead. I k ow my English isn't great but I also don't have interest in it as I do other things. That's not right of me but were all human and were all falable ;-) I expect 90% of people call me crazy and what not but water off a ducks back. I'm also on a phone and don't proof read so that doesn't help. Doesn't make what I'm saying not worth looking I to as you can only teach yourself, my ramblings are just information for you to use as is everyone's. Unfortunitly if its not on TV or in the papers its not true for most people. Real sad state of affairs. And I k is my writing comes across as arrogant and personal to a lot but were in a shit place and political correctness is fucking things up even more! People need to learn to accept others, no matter how much they might not agree with a lot of what they say. Misinformation and disinformation makes it all hard to find the truth but that's all apart of the system that's been created so people just can't make sense of things. If there's a movie about it, its a cover up! It changes peoples perception and they don't even realise it. Titanic for example, which j p Morgan financed white star liners who changed the Olympics (insured for 1.5 million and had an accident in exercises that were said to be its fault) was swapped out to be the titanic (insured for 15.8 million) and to boot, putting a lot of people opposed to the federal reserve bank on there while j p Morgan and friends didn't travel on it last minute! Captain smith was also a level 33 mason. They always make multiple bennifits out of their 'accident' events! Another tell tale sign. Withing less than a year of the olympica been sank as the titanic the fed reserve bank was created. As I say, people have been programmed through social engineering on so many levels, they are pretty damn good at it now! Divide and conquer, they've won as I'm surrounded by brain dead zombie sheep incapable of critical thinking and questioning things and are just obiediant slaves. I'm obviously going look crazy to all these zombies and because most people are zombies they feel the false sense of security been around zombies! Its going take a long long time to start appreciating experience and wiseness over youth and stupidity which is what everyone does these days! Calling anyone a zombie who doesn't also believe in your conspiracy theories is not a convincing debate tactic. Also, just making wildly unbelievable assertions without any evidence is not convincing. You're right about sounding crazy, and you're perfectly free to be so, but if you hope to convince anyone to take you or your ideas seriously, grammar, sound logic, and proof-reading your posts are the first place to start. Then use sources to back up your claims, and it's now worth the time to read and consider your ideas. Phone and haste are acceptable excuses for typos, but lack of education is the excuse for poor grammar or confusing homophones, and as a rule, people with low education generally have poorly reasoned, overly simplistic, or incorrect ideas. Your ideas are only as good as the packaging they come in. If you have no credibility, the message you are trying to convey doesn't either. |
|
|
|
Clinton may look inevitable, but some Iowa Democrats are ready for WarrenIA dems tiring of Hillary?AMES, Iowa — Thirteen Iowa Democrats wearily took their seats here this weekend and discussed among themselves the source of their angst: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“I’m utterly tired, tired of the Clintons and the whole establishment,” said Carole Brannon, 71, a retired nurse.
Anne Kinzel, 57, a former health-care attorney, nodded sympathetically.
“The hacks think Hillary is entitled to be president,” Kinzel said. “I think she is one of those people who has lost the sense of why they are in politics.”
As Clinton prepares to launch her all-but-certain 2016 campaign, the former secretary of state remains a favorite of a vast majority of Democrats and the front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination. Still, there is unease among progressives about her largely uncontested ascent. More... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-may-look-inevitable-but-some-iowa-democrats-are-ready-for-warren/2015/02/09/1f0063fe-b083-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html God, I'd rather see Warren run than Hillary. Warren is at least principled, even if you disagree with her policies. She has stated emphatically though that she will not run in 2016. |
|
|
|
But you changed what I said without indicating that you had done so. Would have been nice if you'd just indicated you were making a change to what you thought.
Hahaha, mate, I pointed out plainly I was changing the quote. FTFY = Fixed That For You. It's used to indicate someone altered a quote to make it more accurate. In this case, I was making it reflect reality. You missed the joke. The point was you're stating as fact something that isn't. From Wikipedia-
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly, obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
See, my point is they're not protesting CAIR. They don't reference CAIR in signs or speech. They are protesting a gathering of Muslims. That's why they're bigots, as evidenced by the definition you quoted. This shows the blond lady talking, and the microphone being rudely taken away from here.
How very rude! She didn't push or shove anyone, and they denied her freedom of speech!
The woman was not invited to speak at the podium. She is using someone else's equipment without permission, which is inherently a use of force. To the extent anyone responds to take the property that does not belong to her away, it's self defense. They didn't deny her speech, they denied her access to their property. She was perfectly free to shout her hate speech without their microphone, but she wanted to make sure she was the center of attention. Mission accomplished! Anti-sharia legislation is certainly constitutional.
Anti-sharia legislation is redundant on the grounds that the government can't enforce any religion in the first place, or the laws any religion has. Any law that attempts to tell a religious community what rules can govern its own religion is unconstitutional, whether it be sharia law with arbitrary rules for Muslims within the Islamic faith, or the arbitrary Christian rules they impose upon themselves. New research suggests that putting on a fake smile to mask your unhappiness or displeasure may have unexpected consequences. It can actually worsen your mood and cause you to withdraw from tasks. Scientists examined what happened when people engaged in fake smiling, an activity also known as "surface acting." They also examined what happened when the same people engaged in "deep acting," a genuine smile. On days when smiles were forced, the participants' moods got worse and they tended to withdraw from work. The New York Times reports: "Trying to suppress negative thoughts, it turns out, may have made those thoughts even more persistent ... Women were affected more than men."Stay healthy my friend What does the research say about typing "hahaha" to indicate actual laughter occurred? is the opposite of actual. I knew no actual "hahahah" happened when it was typed. It is better for the soul to say what we feel...  (I am actually smiling) You're right, it was an actual "hahaha". The unintentionally irony of someone complaining about me changing their quote with a FTFY device was literally laugh-out-loud funny. I guess you better stick to what you actually know, because your insights have proven as accurate as the conservative click bait you post.  <--- Not an actual kiss. |
|
|
|
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status. http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!) I don't get the impression you understand the concepts, but then you don't need to to create polemical arguments. Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes. Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument. Wikipedia says this: The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1] Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess. Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens. BTW, our conversation has pushed me to look for more information on this topic. I have found the following: The Immigration and Nationality Act defines what constitutes a "citizen at birth." (It should be noted that this does not mean "natural born" but it is still a separate classification from someone who is a naturalized citizen. It will still take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to equate "natural born" citizen with "citizen at birth.") Anyway, a "citizen at birth" is 1) anyone born on US soil, 2) a bunch of inapplicable scenarios, and 3): a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date
The relevant portions of this section are: born outside the US after 1952, to one US citizen parent who lived at least 5 years in the US (2 of which were to be after the age of 14) and before the birth of the child. The mother meets these requirements, so Cruz is a "citizen at birth." I find it likely a court would equate "citizen at birth" with "natural born," but until it's codified in law, it's just speculation.Interesting to note, until 1978, there was also a residency requirement that foreign-born citizens at birth had to meet within a specified time in order to keep their citizenship. This requirement was scrapped by a new law in 1978, but anyone who did not meet the residency requirement before it passed was not restored their citizenship. This isn't applicable to Cruz, just an aside of how citizenship at birth could be granted and still lost. |
|
|
|
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status. http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!) I don't get the impression you understand the concepts, but then you don't need to to create polemical arguments. Regarding the actual facts, though, you have a case here of a baby born to a mother who is a US citizen, while in Canada. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes. Otherwise, why don't we have thousands of babies of US servicemen, stationed in Korea and marrying there, find their babies get draft orders for the South Korean military? Stated in this fashion, you have made a ridiculous argument. Wikipedia says this: The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth." Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1] Yes, yes, your arguments are understood, but they're nothing more than speculation until actual case law is established. Notice the source "indicates" instead of pointing to case law that actually states. It's not set until it's codified by Congress with a law stating so, or the judiciary through an interpretation of the undefined term "natural born." (Or I suppose in this age of abuse by the executive branch, by executive order.) You can be making a very good guess that's how it will play out, but it's still just a guess. Also, the citizenship practices of other nations have zero bearing on the citizenship practices of the United States. Your South Korean example is perfectly refuted by the fact that exactly the opposite is true in America. Clearly every baby born to US parents overseas is not just a citizen of whatever country they happen to reside in when the baby comes.
Not that it has any bearing on how other nations establish their citizenship requirements, but that's exactly how it works in America. If a foreign soldier is on duty in the United States and gives birth to a child, that child is automatically an American citizen by virtue of being born on US soil. Same for children of illegal immigrants, neither parent has to be an American, if the kid is born on US soil, they are automatically US citizens. |
|
|
|
But you changed what I said without indicating that you had done so. Would have been nice if you'd just indicated you were making a change to what you thought.
Hahaha, mate, I pointed out plainly I was changing the quote. FTFY = Fixed That For You. It's used to indicate someone altered a quote to make it more accurate. In this case, I was making it reflect reality. You missed the joke. The point was you're stating as fact something that isn't. From Wikipedia-
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly, obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
See, my point is they're not protesting CAIR. They don't reference CAIR in signs or speech. They are protesting a gathering of Muslims. That's why they're bigots, as evidenced by the definition you quoted. This shows the blond lady talking, and the microphone being rudely taken away from here.
How very rude! She didn't push or shove anyone, and they denied her freedom of speech!
The woman was not invited to speak at the podium. She is using someone else's equipment without permission, which is inherently a use of force. To the extent anyone responds to take the property that does not belong to her away, it's self defense. They didn't deny her speech, they denied her access to their property. She was perfectly free to shout her hate speech without their microphone, but she wanted to make sure she was the center of attention. Mission accomplished! Anti-sharia legislation is certainly constitutional.
Anti-sharia legislation is redundant on the grounds that the government can't enforce any religion in the first place, or the laws any religion has. Any law that attempts to tell a religious community what rules can govern its own religion is unconstitutional, whether it be sharia law with arbitrary rules for Muslims within the Islamic faith, or the arbitrary Christian rules they impose upon themselves. New research suggests that putting on a fake smile to mask your unhappiness or displeasure may have unexpected consequences. It can actually worsen your mood and cause you to withdraw from tasks. Scientists examined what happened when people engaged in fake smiling, an activity also known as "surface acting." They also examined what happened when the same people engaged in "deep acting," a genuine smile. On days when smiles were forced, the participants' moods got worse and they tended to withdraw from work. The New York Times reports: "Trying to suppress negative thoughts, it turns out, may have made those thoughts even more persistent ... Women were affected more than men."Stay healthy my friend What does the research say about typing "hahaha" to indicate actual laughter occurred? |
|
|
|
But you changed what I said without indicating that you had done so. Would have been nice if you'd just indicated you were making a change to what you thought.
Hahaha, mate, I pointed out plainly I was changing the quote. FTFY = Fixed That For You. It's used to indicate someone altered a quote to make it more accurate. In this case, I was making it reflect reality. You missed the joke. The point was you're stating as fact something that isn't. From Wikipedia-
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly, obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
See, my point is they're not protesting CAIR. They don't reference CAIR in signs or speech. They are protesting a gathering of Muslims. That's why they're bigots, as evidenced by the definition you quoted. This shows the blond lady talking, and the microphone being rudely taken away from here.
How very rude! She didn't push or shove anyone, and they denied her freedom of speech!
The woman was not invited to speak at the podium. She is using someone else's equipment without permission, which is inherently a use of force. To the extent anyone responds to take the property that does not belong to her away, it's self defense. They didn't deny her speech, they denied her access to their property. She was perfectly free to shout her hate speech without their microphone, but she wanted to make sure she was the center of attention. Mission accomplished! Anti-sharia legislation is certainly constitutional.
Anti-sharia legislation is redundant on the grounds that the government can't enforce any religion in the first place, or the laws any religion has. Any law that attempts to tell a religious community what rules can govern its own religion is unconstitutional, whether it be sharia law with arbitrary rules for Muslims within the Islamic faith, or the arbitrary Christian rules they impose upon themselves. Nope. All you have to do is point to specific, black letter paragraphs of Sharia that conflict with the US Constitution and or the Bill of Rights. And there are bunches of those. There's a valid concern that someone/some group in the USA would attempt to create enclaves with laws different than the basic Constitutional rights. Likely the best known example of this is polygamy. Sharia says a man can marry four women. Minnesota says no. State wins. No, there is exactly zero concern that some group in the USA would attempt to create enclaves with laws different than the basic Constitutional rights, because the only entities that can create laws are the government. Some wacko cult/religion passes a "law"? It has zero binding on American citizens. As you've already demonstrated with your example on polygamy, actual laws trump religious rules. You've actually just proven my point that anti-Sharia law is redundant because actual law already governs. |
|
|
|
One group of delusional asshats hopped up on their holy self-righteousness and spreading the doctrine of their own infallibility, fighting a terrorist group of exactly the same. The irony is rich!
An anonymous Internet poster claiming recruiting sites of cold blooded killers is "exactly the same" as an Anonymous group retaliating for said murders, and finding it just a joke. Take a couple breaths mate and read it again. What you and I said were not the same! |
|
|
|
Poor guy is gonna spend the rest of his life with rapists and murderers.. He's gonna get so destroyed in there =(
He did try to get people bumped off. So spending time with murderers is something he shouldn't be complaining about. Was that the worst crime he commited ? I think generally murder or the attempt of is considered the worst crime there is, however he has not yet been charged of that. That's for another trial I believe. I think he was charged with attempted murder in this trial. The Maryland indictment against him includes two charges related to attempted murder: one charge for attempted murder of a federal witness, and another charge for use of interstate commerce to facilitate murder-for-hire. If no human being comes forward with the claim, "Ross threatened me. I want protection and retribution," and verifies it on the stand in open court, it's all hearsay. Ross can get out of it by requiring someone to come forward with a claim of attempted murder, and verify it on the stand.  They don't need someone to say Ross threatened him when they have all the evidence of him trying to hire a hitman. That's the opposite of hearsay, that's direct evidence. What you're describing is a defense for assault. He wasn't charged with assault, he was charged with attempted murder, and a murder-for-hire plot. Your legal ideas continue to be simplistic. |
|
|
|
I wonder how are such decisions taken, and are passed legally. It would be stupid to spend that amount on fightin ebola, when there are clearly more important issues to look at to.
Read it again. It's not for fighting ebola but for paying the national debt of those three countries. So the whole money will go to IMF. You're right. It looks like the UK makes some debt service payments on behalf of these countries to the IMF, in theory freeing those countries up to spend the money they would have spent on the debt payments on combating Ebola. Whether or not this happens as planned is another issue. |
|
|
|
That idiot will never get this bill passed.
BTW, as he is CANADIAN by birth, he cannot be president of the USA.
Sorry, I didn't write the rulebook AKA The Constitution.
This actually brings up a point I had completely overlooked. Why is everyone treating Cruz as a potential presidential candidate? The Constitution precludes him from being President. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
NO, this is not an accurate assessment of his status. http://tedcruztalk.com/2015/01/25/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-run-for-president/Cruz — full name: Rafael Edward Cruz –was born in Canada in 1970 because his father was working for the oil industry there. The senator’s recently released birth certificate shows his mother was born in Delaware and his father was born in Cuba. The Cruz family left Canada a few years later. Cruz grew up in Texas and graduated from high school there, later attending Princeton University and Harvard Law School.
By virtue of his American-born mother, Cruz, 42, considers himself a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president.
So is he eligible? The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is.
Is there the tiniest sliver of uncertainty? Yes, there’s that, too.
Constitutional requirements...Cruz considers himself to be American-born, how quaint! Guess that settles it! "The vast majority of legal thought and arguments indicate he is." Well, with such an apparent wealth of sources on the topic, surely you could have posted a couple reputable ones? From what I've found, there is no definitive case law on the definition of "natural born citizen." It doesn't matter what arguments exist, it matters what actual law exists. Since Cruz was not born in the US, perhaps some liberals will challenge him and force him to defend his self-appointed natural born status and a court will finally create a precedent on what "natural born" definitively means. That's even assuming Cruz is viable enough to for people to take his candidacy seriously. (Hahahaha!) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
