Honestly why is anyone bothering to debate this asshole? This thread has already racked up about 300 posts (and yes, I realize I’m contributing to that number with this post). And to what ends? To try to reason with a guy who cites Orly Taitz and WND as legitimate sources? To try to educate someone who says “we don’t know where Obama was born” yet insists he’s not a birther? I’m sorry, but this guy has already waded way too far into the cesspool of ignorance for us to fight his ignorance.
As a purely historical nitpick, the “founding fathers” had fuck-all to do with the 14th amendment, since it was passed well after the last of them had died.
**CoT **was sorta amusing to start with, but he’s gotten boring. We need **Fenris **to write one of his One Trick Pony Marching Society stories about him.
I’d always thought that bit in the 14th Amendment was to preclude children of foreign diplomats acquiring US citizenship at birth.
That’s right. Foreign diplomats are not (mostly) subject to US laws, but immigrants, even illegal ones, are. That’s what the caveat in the 14th amendment is for.
Anyway, there is no question that Obama’s parents were “subject to US laws.” This is more “you can’t explain that!” chaff.
That and occupying armies. (The War of 1812 was still in living memory at the time the Amendment was passed).
Okay, let’s just say, for shits and giggles, that we don’t know where Obama was born. There are two options:
-
he was born in Hawaii
-
he was born in Kenya
If the answer is #1 (and it is), then he is a natural born US citizen no matter what the crazies say. The rule about spending 5 years in America after age 16 is dubious, but even if true it only applies if the birth takes place *outside *America. I’ll give you a little thought experiment (try and concentrate real hard) - say an unwed teenager gives birth in America and the father of the baby is unknown or unnamed. By your rules, said baby cannot gain citizenship from its mother because she’s too young, and cannot gain citizenship from its father because his nationality is unknown. So what nation is this baby a citizen of? Nowhere? If you think about this for more than 2.5 seconds perhaps you’ll see why the US could never have created such a retarded rule regarding babies born on US soil.
So, your only hope now is #2. This requires us to believe that Ann Dunham travelled to Kenya while hugely pregnant, leaving no records, and going there why? She didn’t know anyone there, her family and support system were in Hawaii. And we’re supposed to believe that after she gave birth she high-tailed it back to Hawaii, toting a newborn infant, in time to swear that the baby was born in Hawaii. Do you even have a single shred of evidence that it is that easy to get a Hawaiian birth certificate - one that lists his birthplace as Oahu? And we’re further supposed to believe that the wheels of bureaucracy turned quickly enough that the the birth announcement was in a Hawaiian newspaper on August 13th, 1961 - 9 days after his birth. Do you really think she could have accomplished all that in 9 days, given that she had a newborn and that women were often kept in the hospital for an extended time?
This whole theory is so far beyond credible that it makes me sad that anybody in this day and age believes it. If you want to be a conservative, fine, bitch about taxes or social systems or education or the national debt. Really, there are about a million better things to expend your energy on. You don’t have to believe every crackpot theory that comes along, it is not required of you as a conservative. Actually, you’re just doing a disservice to your people by acting so stupid and childish - your kind make it much easier to laugh off other conservative ideas.
TL;DR version: Have you even heard of Occam’s Razor? Maybe you should learn how to use it.
We four. 
I can remember two treads where;
After a long hard slog I got SA to agree with me. (Not that I wasn’t left feeling used later in the thread :(. I believe that thread, among others at the time, led to his self-pitting.)
Another, where a well cited post, at least/most, got him to see the issue wasn’t as cut and dried as he thought it was. (Not that that even felt like I’d really opened his perspective on the subject in question in general.)
Every time I’ve seen him called on his stubbornness to even consider that his views aren’t supported by the facts in other threads, I really want to cite the above as proof he can be convinced . . . and then he makes some statement that there’s just no way my meager board cred can rehabilitate him from.
I really want to like him (we both (IIRC) share a love for Steely Dan and (an unrequited one for) Lynne Russell) but he’s become that lovable uncle who we’d love more if he’d just shut-up about certain things (or try to remember the times we’ve shown him he’s factually wrong).
The only upside I see is that unlike a plurality at another board I read for teh LOLs, where a thoroughly debunked “fact” will rear it’s stupid head every fucking day, SA does seem to give 'em a couple of weeks or so. It’s slightly less annoying, but still . . .
CMC fnord!
Champion-of-Truth wants what all child molesters want.
It looks like he is gone now. It says BANNED under his name. I bet he was someone’s sock.
Too bad, I was enjoying the show.
Don’t worry … the Freep Jihad will send over a new Sword of Justice any time now.
Twas getting kind of repetitive. (Not surprised; someone coming in guns blazing like that, and only in the pit? Kind of suggested previous experience.)
And now the sleep of bannination knits up the ravelled sock of care.
Banned name!
Well, you could knock me over with a wrecking ball.
Darn! I was trying to get him to admit he was a troll. Oh, well. It was obvious anyways. Hey, Champion of Troll! :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p
Look on the bright side; he managed to extract the inner-birther from **Starving Artist **for our entertainment.
…and therefore never send to know for whom the sock trolls; it trolls for we.
[nitpick]I’m not sure this is correct. Particularly for one-citizen (and minor, I think) parents, I’m pretty sure there is a residency requirement in addition to the citizenship of the parent.
Quick Wiki cite:
[
](Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia)
This has no bearing on the birther nonsense, just a possible nitpick. Corrections to this post are welcome.
It might be best not to make Canadians aware of their country’s status as an “outlying possession”, they can be rather touchy about stuff like that.