Koko78 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It's about the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I don't think libs like Obama know how to read the Constitution past "We the people". They certainly don't seem to get the concept of limited government (or limits on government). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Oh, Christ... Minor v Happersett is irrelevent, it merely ruled in passing the women are, in fact, citizens, and defined "citizenship" as "being born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States". But it does not establish the definition of "natural-born citizen", nor does it establish any distinction between "natural-born" and "naturalized". Which is the key point in your ridiculous and ignorant Obama conspiracy: there are only two types of citizenship: you're born a citizen, or you're not and later on become one de jure. There's no gray area. There is absolutely no "Well, you were born a citizen, but you weren't natural born" status. And thus, the only practical definition of "natural born citizen" is "born a citizen", which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1401. Paragraph (a): Grants Rubio citizenship from birth, hence he is "natural born". And Paragraph (e)... ...applies to Obama, which should answer you none-too-subtle and completely asinine "I know... brings up a few other questions huh??" statement. Now shut the !@#$ up, dipshit. Keep it up, and you will continue to prove your worth as an internet troll... You use a minor law to try and prove citizenship??? WTF OVER!!!! We're not discussing "citizenship" are we???? Why do I bother... but look it up before you embarrass yourself more..... There is a difference though I expect you to come back with some other mundane argument... For F@#$ sake, Arnold is a "citizen"!!! Can he be POTUS now??? His parents weren't actually in America at his birth, but maybe they wanted to be huh?? A55h0735 do vex me.... Edited February 12, 2012 by Cinga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Keep it up, and you will continue to prove your worth as an internet troll... You use a minor law to try and prove citizenship??? Sure. Chapter 8 of the US Code is a minor law. It's completely irrelevant to the topic of citizenship in the face of a Supreme Court decision on women's suffrage. I can't wait to see the morons like you argue that no one born via Caesarian can be president, because it's not a natural birth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 If Barry can become president, Marco most certainly can be vice president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Sure. Chapter 8 of the US Code is a minor law. It's completely irrelevant to the topic of citizenship in the face of a Supreme Court decision on women's suffrage. Off topic, but one of the best bits done on "The Man Show" was when Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel set up a table at a flea marketing getting women to sign their petition to end women's suffrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Since this is where the discussion of the contraception/insurance stuff is.... After ires have cooled a little bit, this would seem to be an important read by Andrew Sullivan, who thinks Obama is being dumb like a fox on the issue. How Obama Set a Contraception Trap for the Right But the conflict-driven headlines and predictions of disaster for Obama are, in my view, deeply misleading. Right now, they are driven both by cable news’s love of a good fight and high ratings and by the Republican primary campaign, in which the candidates, especially Newt Gingrich and Santorum, are desperately battling to unify the evangelical base, which is convinced its faith is somehow under attack. In the longer run, however, I suspect this sudden confluence of kerfuffles will be seen as one of the last gasps of the culture war, not its reignition. That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday, when he proposed an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them. The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it. And given the numbers he's citing, it probably was smart for Romney to not dive into it, other than to say that the White House's plan as originally crafted was stupid and obviously against the 1st Amendment. The "compromise" --- other than a financial focus of fairness/splitting-hairs-of-'direct'-vs.-'indirect'-coverage discussion WRT insurers being made to eat the cost of these services --- would seem to be where the majority of the country, and even the large majority of lay-Catholics are on the issue. The numbers are saying this move does appear to win approval among women and among indies. Not for nothing that Obama can so often appear to step in stevestojan and have it come out smelling like roses. This issue was presented by them, tactically, so Obama could offer the "compromise" and pick up some brownie points with groups he needs to win. That, and any time spent on this is time not being spent on Obama's biggest weakness --- the economy and the budget/debt. Edited February 14, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Since this is where the discussion of the contraception/insurance stuff is.... After ires have cooled a little bit, this would seem to be an important read by Andrew Sullivan, who thinks Obama is being dumb like a fox on the issue. How Obama Set a Contraception Trap for the Right And given the numbers he's citing, it probably was smart for Romney to not dive into it, other than to say that the White House's plan as originally crafted was stupid and obviously against the 1st Amendment. The "compromise" --- other than a financial focus of fairness/splitting-hairs-of-'direct'-vs.-'indirect'-coverage discussion WRT insurers being made to eat the cost of these services --- would seem to be where the majority of the country, and even the large majority of lay-Catholics are on the issue. The numbers are saying this move does appear to win approval among women and among indies. Not for nothing that Obama can so often appear to step in stevestojan and have it come out smelling like roses. This issue was presented by them, tactically, so Obama could offer the "compromise" and pick up some brownie points with groups he needs to win. That, and any time spent on this is time not being spent on Obama's biggest weakness --- the economy and the budget/debt. I agree with you on a good bit of things, but from my perspective, you've fallen into the trap of what the left wants the issue to be, which is a social issue. From what I've seen, the right has SO FAR responded correctly, which is that they've made it about governments penchant for overreaching. That's what the issue has been, not about social issues. Get yourself out of that trap Uconn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So how exactly will BO's plan work if say a large Catholic hospital that is self-insured refuses to give contraceptive coverage to its employees? BO says the insurer must cover it - at no cost to the employer or employee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 So how exactly will BO's plan work if say a large Catholic hospital that is self-insured refuses to give contraceptive coverage to its employees? BO says the insurer must cover it - at no cost to the employer or employee. As of right now they would have to pay a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 As of right now they would have to pay a penalty. Render unto Obama the things which are Obama's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Render unto Obama the things which are Obama's How's a Catholic hospital supposed to get rainbow-farting unicorns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 How's a Catholic hospital supposed to get rainbow-farting unicorns? Jesus could turn water into wine Catholics can turn crackers and grape juice into Jesus They'll find a way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72209.html#ixzz1l40G3ExT I'm a pro choice guy, but I completely respect the pro life stance, and this bill makes alot of sense. It is yet another reason why a candidate like Rubio will appeal to many Americans, I have little doubt that he will one day in the not so distan future end up being the president of this country. I hope your right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 I hope your right. yep, right after Jeb Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Jesus could turn water into wine Catholics can turn crackers and grape juice into Jesus Some would argue that Jesus wasn't a cracker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts