How to debunk George W. Bush’s attempts at revisionism

[keymanjim]

:lamo
Do you know when Hawaii became part of the Union?
August 21, 1959
:lamo

Irrelevant. Where he was born isn't important. Who he was born to is.
The idea that being born on US soil automatically grants citizenship is a concept that originated in the court system. Not enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution.
That a person is born of even one foreign national negates any claim to US citizenship.
This also solves the problem of so called "anchor babies".

 

[TheDemSocialist]

How NOT? Damn near everything you posted about GWB can be said about both his predecessor and his successor. You and people like you are starting to go into an apoplectic fit because people dont see him as Satan. Thats just...pathetic. IMAGINE how ****ed up your world would look if you recognized Obama has carried on most of his practices or that Clintons positions on most things were no different than GWBs.

So you cant give me any specifics?

 

[iguanaman]

Except for Roosevelt, considering the Japanese massacred millions of Chinese citizens. Or whoever was president during the Rwandan Genocide. Arguably, Clinton was responsible for more "sanctions".

I don't think WWII could have been avoided and I am not talking about genocide in other countries. I am only talking about AMERICAN deaths.
I believe 911, and the Iraq/Afghan wars could have been avoided if we had someone with brains in charge. That's about 9000 dead Americans who died for nothing.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Irrelevant. Where he was born isn't important. Who he was born to is.
The idea that being born on US soil automatically grants citizenship is a concept that originated in the court system. Not enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution.
That a person is born of even one foreign national negates any claim to US citizenship.
This also solves the problem of so called "anchor babies".

:lamo
Well you said it was relevant. And here you go:
"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"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf




And Tisdale v. Obama

 

[VanceMack]

So you cant give me any specifics?

Gay marriage...the Patriot Act and intrusions on personal liberty...position on Iraq and WMDs...extending Obama Tax Cuts...spending.

Viva Che!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The idea that being born on US soil automatically grants citizenship is a concept that originated in the court system. Not enumerated anywhere in the US Constitution.

Therefore the court interprets it. Dont you know that?
And plus did you forget that Obama's mother is Kansan?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Gay marriage...the Patriot Act and intrusions on personal liberty...position on Iraq and WMDs...extending Obama Tax Cuts...spending.

Viva Che!

:roll:
How is any of that criticism "pathetic"?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Gay marriage...

Plus that wasnt even in the article

the Patriot Act

Wasnt even mentioned in the article

and intrusions on personal liberty

also wasnt mentioned

...position on Iraq and WMDs...extending Obama Tax Cuts...spending.

These were mentioned. And how is this criticism "pathetic"

 

[keymanjim]

:lamo
Well you said it was relevant. And here you go:
"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"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf




And Tisdale v. Obama

Try something that existed prior to obama's run for office.

You know, like the US CONSTITUTION. Specifically, the 14TH AMENDMENT. Where it says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And then read the debates on the 14th Amendment where Sen Lyman Trumbull is quoted:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION THEREOF.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. "
And, low and behold, obama isn't even a citizen.

Should you have any further doubt on the matter, just re-read what I just posted. It's as dumbed-down as I can get it for you.

 

[Henrin]

Therefore the court interprets it. Dont you know that?
And plus did you forget that Obama's mother is Kansan?

Basing citizenship on the parents is how it is usually done. You may not think it is fair, but not only is it fair, but its practical. Being able to deport all the family members is far superior that being left with three bad choices that either involve breaking up a family or ignoring your laws.

I really have no idea why people support that horrible interpretation. Not only is it wrong, but its not practical or desirable.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Try something that existed prior to obama's run for office.

You know, like the US CONSTITUTION. Specifically, the 14TH AMENDMENT. Where it says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And then read the debates on the 14th Amendment where Sen Lyman Trumbull is quoted:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION THEREOF.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. "
And, low and behold, obama isn't even a citizen.

Should you have any further doubt on the matter, just re-read what I just posted. It's as dumbed-down as I can get it for you.

Your not even making any sense. You little quote does not back up anything. Stop beating a dead horse.

 

[keymanjim]

Therefore the court interprets it. Dont you know that?
And plus did you forget that Obama's mother is Kansan?

The courts aren't entrusted with the power to change the Constitution. To say that a person gains citizenship by merely being born here would alter the 14th Amendment. Which the courts cannot do.
That power rest solely with Congress. To date, they haven't passed an Amendment that alters or abolished the 14th.

 

[keymanjim]

Your not even making any sense. You little quote does not back up anything. Stop beating a dead horse.

I told you to re-read it if you have any doubts. You can do so now.
If it's too complicated for you then find yourself a spot over at the My Little Pony forums.

 

[VanceMack]

Plus that wasnt even in the article


Wasnt even mentioned in the article


also wasnt mentioned


These were mentioned. And how is this criticism "pathetic"

Whats pathetic is the investment in insisting GWB was Satan incarnate. Your list of positions in post 17 is equally pathetic as was your pathetic response in 27.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The courts aren't entrusted with the power to change the Constitution.

No one is changing it.

To say that a person gains citizenship by merely being born here would alter the 14th Amendment. Which the courts cannot do.

No it wouldnt. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN THE ****ING USA

That power rest solely with Congress. To date, they haven't passed an Amendment that alters or abolished the 14th.

They dont need to

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I told you to re-read it if you have any doubts. You can do so now.
If it's too complicated for you then find yourself a spot over at the My Little Pony forums.

:roll:
Dear god

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Whats pathetic is the investment in insisting GWB was Satan incarnate.

Who called him that? That was only you who called him that.

Your list of positions in post 17 is equally pathetic as was your pathetic response in 27.

Oh nooo!

 

[VanceMack]

Who called him that? That was only you who called him that.



Oh nooo!

Oh yes.

Viva Che!

 

[keymanjim]

No one is changing it.


No it wouldnt. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN THE ****ING USA


They dont need to

These facts are upsetting you. You clearly don't have the grasp for the subject matter.

You will accept that obama was born a British subject on American soil, devoid of US citizenship, and move on.

 

[shlunka]

I don't think WWII could have been avoided and I am not talking about genocide in other countries. I am only talking about AMERICAN deaths.
I believe 911, and the Iraq/Afghan wars could have been avoided if we had someone with brains in charge. That's about 9000 dead Americans who died for nothing.

58,000 died in Vietnam, though I don't recall the deaths from Korea. Neither of those were for anything but an overzealous love for Capitalism over communism. Not saying communism is better "not at all!" but that the U.S shouldn't have engaged in foreign conflicts where the indigenous mentality obviously didn't care if we sent 10 million troops to fight them.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

These facts are upsetting you. You clearly don't have the grasp for the subject matter.

No there not and i dont think you understand how our system works or basic English.

You will accept that obama was born a British subject on American soil, devoid of US citizenship, and move on.

I will my fuhrer?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Oh yes.

Viva Che!

Che Vive!

 

[keymanjim]

No there not and i dont think you understand how our system works or basic English.


I will my fuhrer?

Bless you heart, you keep on trying.
You failed long ago, but you just can't figure that out.

Give me a second. I think I have a shiny ball around here for you to play with.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Bless you heart, you keep on trying.
You failed long ago, but you just can't figure that out.

Give me a second. I think I have a shiny ball around here for you to play with.

:2wave:
goodbye

 

[Fiddytree]

Basing citizenship on the parents is how it is usually done. You may not think it is fair, but not only is it fair, but its practical. Being able to deport all the family members is far superior that being left with three bad choices that either involve breaking up a family or ignoring your laws.

I really have no idea why people support that horrible interpretation. Not only is it wrong, but its not practical or desirable.

It was important to deal with many of the issues surrounding slavery, Native Americans, and reconstruction.

But let's take a step back. We know your views on the Constitution have largely been out of view since at least 1803. Most of the Constitutional framework from that moment on has been deemed "wrong."