mccain not eleigible to be prez

Cypress said:
forget it. Your banging your head on the wall. SF is one of those posters who think they are armchair legal and scientific experts, based on their knowledge from some editorial they read in National Review.

Yesterday he was telling me that he had no idea, indeed was skeptical, that human greenhouse gas emmissions were primarily responsible for warming the planet. Even after I posted that every single government and credible scientific organization on the planet had concured that human activities, most likely, are the leading cause of the atmospheric temperature trend increases.
Click to expand...


Oh Gumby... here we go again. You just cannot get away from trying to find out how much mankind is to "blame" can you? The fact that I agree there is global warming and that I agree with the fact that we should do everything we can to limit emissions and pollution just isn't enough. You are quite pathetic gumby.

I never claimed to be a scientific expert you twit. I just said I do not care what percentage of responsibility mankind is to blame. It does nothing to get us toward a solution.

Nor have I claimed to be a legal expert. I stated what the current law was. Unless you have some alternate definition in the law somewhere that states otherwise, then you would probably be better served sitting this one out. You took enough of a beating yesterday.

Poor Gumby.
 
Darla said:
He is one of those google maniacs. He googles everything, finds an article abotu it, and then takes a definitive stance on it based on that one article as if it contained all the knowledge in all the known world. And he will never, ever, back down or just say "huh, I'm not sure on this".

It's just stupid. You have to have a lot of time to kill to want to get involved with his nonsense.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right. How many times have we run across rightwing self proclaimed scientific or foreign policy armchair experts, clutching some National Review editorial they read?

I kind of feel like a fool for even going round and round with the global warming deniers and minimizers. :o Stop me next time!
 
Darla said:
He is one of those google maniacs. He googles everything, finds an article abotu it, and then takes a definitive stance on it based on that one article as if it contained all the knowledge in all the known world. And he will never, ever, back down or just say "huh, I'm not sure on this".

It's just stupid. You have to have a lot of time to kill to want to get involved with his nonsense.
Click to expand...

Such a bitter little person you are. You should get some therapy.
 
Cypress said:
Sounds about right. How many times have we run across rightwing self proclaimed scientific or foreign policy armchair experts, clutching some National Review editorial they read?

I kind of feel like a fool for even going round and round with the global warming deniers and minimizers. :o Stop me next time!
Click to expand...

Poor Gumby... so easily confused. Neither of us denied global warming gumby. We just said we didn't care whether or not man was causing it. We said we would rather focus on reducing emissions and pollution and move towards more clean energy. But I suppose your dumbass just cannot grasp those little things because we didn't chant properly with your brainwashed Gumby ass.
 
Superfreak said:
Oh Gumby... here we go again. You just cannot get away from trying to find out how much mankind is to "blame" can you?

Poor Gumby.
Click to expand...

Pardon the hijacking, but I need to claim my ownage. I won't hijack after this post.


Superfreak:

Superfreak: While I am a skeptic of man being the primary cause of global warming, I do believe that we are going through changes.

http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=173546&postcount=60
Click to expand...

Scientists:

-National Science Academies of the G8, Joint Statement 2007: “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.”

-Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations,"

-American Geophysical Union: “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system….are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

-US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Pardon the hijacking, but I need to claim my ownage. I won't hijack after this post.


Superfreak:

National Science Academies of the G8, Joint Statement 2007: “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.”

-Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations,"

-American Geophysical Union: “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system….are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.

-US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...

Scientists:
Click to expand...


Good boy Gumby... way to post the same crap again....

Note all the qualifiers Gumby. You act as though it is an absolute. I am skeptical any time we have a "consensus" based on a bunch of qualifiers. Being skeptical doesn't mean they are wrong Gumby. It means I am SKEPTICAL and thus will wait until they have better data to where they don't have to use the qualifiers.
 
Superfreak said:
Good boy Gumby... way to post the same crap again....

Note all the qualifiers Gumby. You act as though it is an absolute. I am skeptical any time we have a "consensus" based on a bunch of qualifiers. Being skeptical doesn't mean they are wrong Gumby. It means I am SKEPTICAL and thus will wait until they have better data to where they don't have to use the qualifiers.
Click to expand...

You act as though it is an absolute. I am skeptical any time we have a "consensus" based on a bunch of qualifiers


You wanted to invade a small country, 7,000 miles away, at the cost of a trillion dollars, based on intelligence with qualifiers.

Science always has qualifiers and uncertainties. Did you fail High school science class? Science, indeed no empirical analysis, every gives you 100% certainty. The level of certainty about global warming and human contribution is sufficiently high, that you can no longer credibly say that your skeptical and you don't think humans are the major cause.
 
Cypress said:
You act as though it is an absolute. I am skeptical any time we have a "consensus" based on a bunch of qualifiers


You wanted to invade a small country, 7,000 miles away, at the cost of a trillion dollars, based on intelligence with qualifiers.

Science always has qualifiers and uncertainties. Did you fail High school science class? Science, indeed no empirical analysis, every gives you 100% certainty. The level of certainty about global warming and human contribution is sufficiently high, that you can no longer credibly say that your skeptical and you don't think humans are the major cause.
Click to expand...

Listen Gumby, when you use qualifiers like very likely and primarily in the same damn sentence it means you aren't sure what the effect is. This is not like saying "we believe the human effect is approximately causing 70% of the change in temperature". There is a big difference in the two. I can accept margins of error as they will always be present. But given that you cannot define what they mean by very likely a primary cause.... then you should quit harping on it like it means something.

Saying something "very likely could be a primary cause" indicates that there is something else that could be the primary cause. If man was the clear cut front runner, then it wouldn't be "very likely".... it would be MAN IS the primary cause. But they do not say that which means your precious consensus isn't sure on that point. This is not to say they don't think man is contributing, but they don't know if man is the primary cause.

All of which doesn't matter Gumby. Because as long as man is contributing at all.... that is all we need to know. That and the other reasons we mentioned to you should be more than enough reason to eliminate as much of pollutions and emissions as we can.
 
SF stupidly got caught making the typical knee jerk reaction and now he is trying to cover. Not even McCain's counsel says there is no doubt.

The titles you mentioned do not clearly define natural born. The 1790 law did and that could be constitutionally challenged and has since been superceded. I have little doubt that the court would rule in McCain's favor, but there is no definitive precedent, no matter how much you pretend there is.
 
Dungheap said:
As I said previously, twice now, be sure to send along your thorough legal research to the McCain campaign, you'll be saving them substantial sums in legal fees.

Title 8 merely says which folks are citizens at birth, nothing more. It does not define who is a "natural born citizen" as that phrase is used in the US Constitution.

Fer CHrist's sake, JOHN McCAIN'S CAMPAIGN PAID A LAWYER TO RESEARCH THE ISSUE AND THE LAWYER SAYS QUITE CLEARLY THAT IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION.
Click to expand...
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
 
Socrtease said:
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
Click to expand...
This.
 
The constitution does not define natural born so that mean that the definition of citizen at birth was left to the Congress and they have done their job. That so many people are so stupid as to argue this so that it requires a court ruling is...well just fucking stupid.

Congress first extended citizenship to children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And 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."(Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session. )
 
Socrtease said:
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
Click to expand...

There you go String/Dung/Cypress....

Now to find something else to piss you off with...
 
Socrtease said:
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
Click to expand...

Side note...String/Dung

:tongout:

Cypress:

:321:
 
Socrtease said:
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with a ruling that stated that, and I doubt Dungheap would have a problem with it either. The article that sf did not bother to read before he spouted off pretty clearly concluded that is how any court should and likely would rule.

The issue is that this is not a settled matter. I don't think anyone has actually advanced the idea that McCain should not be considered "natural born."

And I mentioned the 1790 law, but that can be challenged and it has been superceded.
 
OH OH..............!

Damocles said:
What if they were born by C-Section would they be "natural born"? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



you just opened a can of worms...does this also apply to the un-borne...have their constitutional rights been abridged if they are aborted?...just food for thought for all the self proclaimed scholars in here!
;)
 
Socrtease said:
YOu are just being purposely obtuse now. Citizen at birth is natural born. Quit being an ass just to be an ass. The rest of you quit arguing with him and he will find something else to piss you off with. Let this thread die. Oh and I AM a lawyer. Citizen at birth = natural born. Otherwise you would have to be naturalized.
Click to expand...


So your position is that Congress, by statute, can define what the terms of the Constitution mean? Really? I don't recall that being one of the enumerated powers of Congress but I'm sure you can point me in the right direction.

Title 8 of the US Code can no more inform what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen" (and makes no attempt to do so) than Congress could by statute define what the terms "due process" or "privileges and immunities" mean.

You may be a lawyer, but it seems you're a bit rusty on your Con Law.

. . . adding, I'm not saying McCain is not a "natural born citizen" and I'm not saying that anyone will or ought to challenge whether he is a "natural born citizen." All I am saying is that it is an open question, as his campaign acknowledges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top