For the record, I don’t recall saying this was my top priority either. But I don’t think the natural born provision is necessary and I do think it should be eliminated.
::Shudder::
I can’t tell you how many college kids I knew whose parents threatened to cut them off if they didn’t vote for Bush. I wouldn’t oppose raising the voting age.
College kids say a lot of dumb shit, but then again, so do their parents. If you’re old enough to be trusted to fuck at 15 or 16 (in most states) and drive a car, I think you can be trusted to vote at that age, given that driving and fucking have a lot more impact on your life than voting does.
For the record I wouldn’t mind seeing the driving age raised, and I believe it’s happening, at least in Arizona.
Fucking is a whole can of worms that I’m not going to dip into in a thread so unrelated.
:dubious:
Aren’t you completely negating your own point which was:
While WWI was a disaster, obviously, Tsar Nicholas, or King George felt that patriotism and national interest were INDEED more important than family ties.
(And another thing – had they “bent over backwards to prevent hostilities” then things would have been a lot better!)
Of course it would. I expect it would. And the further you go down the triviality continuum, the more currency “Waah! Its not fair!” has as a counter argument.
Making whatever amendments are necessary to the constitution to make McCain-Feingold constitutional might be a start.
Or how about we stop trying to tinker with the constitution and argue about something bigger, like health care reform.
On the other hand, maybe if we had meaningful campaign finance reform, we would find it easier to “fix” the health care issue. Because as far as I can see the current proposals make it worse, but that is because the insiders have a seat at the table, and the outsiders don’t.
For the record I am in favor of a single payer system, more or less Canada style. Failing that we need some system that at least attempts to control costs. To do that you have to fight the providers, poliltically. But they have too much political clout because they can spend lots of money on influencing the lawmakers and the public debate.
No. Because I am assuming that war was in the national interest of at least some of the countries. It sometimes is, you know.
Yes, sometimes it is, of couse. But I’m talking about an instant when it wasn’t.
Do you know much about WWI? Just asking?
It’s the opposite of a counterargument, actually: it’s a dismissal of the issue by saying it isn’t important and does not deal with the merits of the case.
Both of those issues have been discussed here at length, particularly health care reform. We don’t need to turn this thread into another health care argument - or for that matter a debate about the drinking or voting age.
It will vary by country, but I believe that generally you can as long as you are a citizen of another country and you are are not present physically in the country that you are renouncing citizenship of. So a dual citizen of Australia and the U.S. could renounce Australian citizenship by going to an Australian embassy or consulate in the US, and making an appropriate declaration to an embassy or consular official, presumably handing in their Australian passport at the same time.
And if such a dual citizen wanted to stand for election as a member of the Australian Parliament, the Australian Constitution would require them to renounce their U.S. citizenship. Presumably that would make them permanently ineligible to be eleced as President of the U.S., because even if they later regained U.S. citizenship, they would no longer be “natural born”. But that issue is highly unlikely to ever come before the courts.
Some things are fine the way they are, this is one of those things.
I think the concept of a beige world makes me throw up in my mouth. We are NOT all the same, we’re different and that’s good. I think a person born in America would make a better American president, the same way a Brit would make the best PM. There are rules and there are injustices, sometimes those things are the same. In this case, they’re not. There’s nothing unjust about the ‘natural born citizen’ rule. It just means that some people can’t do certian things. That’s a universal truth that people have to bloody well deal with. I can’t be the king of England, and if you were born in England, you can’t be the POTUS. I suppose that’s just the way it goes.
Further though, I think in the great rush to ensure everybody’s equal all the time, we forget that there are things that make us wonderfully different. Being from somewhere is one of those things. Despite the opinions to the contrary, America has a history, a culture and an identity all its’ own. If you’re born here and raised here, you understand that. If you come here with an idea in your head but with no practical experience, maybe not so much. Barack Obama should no more trade places with Sarkozy than Sarkozy with Obama. Fair leaders the both of them, but for their own respective countries. Obama doesn’t understand what it means to be French, nor Sarkozy what it means to be American. What we do (or at least should) understand though is that we need to treat one another with honor, fairness and mutual respect for our differences with the understanding that we have more that binds us together than splits us apart.
There’s a sort-of-joke among UK consular staff that British citizens who renounce their citizenship don’t really mean it, and they’ll often tell you to clear off and come back when you’re sober.
That’s why we have secret ballots.
I would support amending the Constitution in this way, but only as an offshoot of my desire to bring about a certain ideal future.
But is that not a democratic choice that people should be free to make for themselves?
The Reptilepublicans will force change anyway in a few years in order to allow Schwarzenegger to stand fo president. Nobody would care a toss where Obama was born were he a white man. The USA is still 50 years and more behind the rest of the world.
And yet virtually no developed countries have elected an ethnic minority to their highest offices, except racist ol’ us.
And of racist ol’ you the biggest outcry is (as usual) from the loudest minority trying to make up for numbers with noise. What’s that about empty vessels making the loudest sound? I don’t for a moment think that the ‘typical’ American imagines Rush Limbaugh saying only what he dare under ‘liberal Communist oppression’ when ‘reality’ is far more extreme, (any more than the typical 1930s German really ‘believed’ in all that Nazi stuff) but those mad enough to feel that way do try to give that impression just like religious maniacs try to give the impression that they alone are True Muslms (occasionally Christians) and the rest are treacherous backsliders.
We all have them and we all need to get together together to show our support against them as they band together. The KKK once ruled throughout part of your country. Very likely the old slave-owners were the least bothered about ending it because they saw it more as class than race, but the KKK could pit poor white and black against each other instead of together for better conditions (divide & rule as Louis XV). But if the Blacks had produced their own terrorists? How strong would the KKK have been then?
The US and increasingly the rest of the world is under Big Business influence. Libertarianism is a pie-in-the-sky answer that will no more happen than Total Communism, and is probably used by BB to avoid measures that would stand up to it. As individuals? I liked The Waltons. (I grew up a lot like that) But that is a lost world. Its ideals are still accesible though, and they do not amount to Wall St. and race conflicts.
This really isn’t true at all. Search in GQ, there have been several threads with a whole bunch of examples.
Anything which keeps me from having to listen to Arnold several times a day is fine by me. Even if it’s Arnold blowing shit up; it stops being funny the first time someone is killed. Or loses everything to a mis-aimed Hellfire missile.
Is Americanness genetic? Something like 20,000 kids are adopted from overseas every year. What do they lose out on by living the first few months of their lives someplace else?
Yes, and if you can’t do certain things for no good reason, it may be unjust. 
You can if you’re descended from the right Germans.
Where did people come up with this absurd idea that equal and different are opposite concepts? Equality is not the opposite of difference. Sameness is the opposite of difference. The whole idea of equality is that you give people the same rights even if they are different.
Which you can understand if you are born in France to American citizens and live there for a few years. However, if you’re born in China and adopted by Americans at age three months, you could never possibly understand. I get it now. I don’t know why I failed to catch on before.