FrisianDude
Archduke
Obomber? Jesus.Madnes5 said:
Users who are viewing this thread
Archduke
Get your source from a non-nutwing site, dumbass.
Looks like your friends haven't read the constitution either.
That's irrelevant, only one of your parents has to be a citizen in order to become a natural born citizen. Furthermore, you're a U.S citizen as long as you're born on U.S soil. I was born before my parents became citizens, and I am a natural born citizen. I'd expect you to read the **** you post, you know. Or, at least, as a "freedom loving conservative" read the ****ing Constitution. How ironic, me, a liberal, more of an American than you.
Looks like your friends haven't read the constitution either.
That's irrelevant, only one of your parents has to be a citizen in order to become a natural born citizen. Furthermore, you're a U.S citizen as long as you're born on U.S soil. I was born before my parents became citizens, and I am a natural born citizen. I'd expect you to read the **** you post, you know. Or, at least, as a "freedom loving conservative" read the ****ing Constitution. How ironic, me, a liberal, more of an American than you.
Does "freedom" have a special meaning for US conservatives? In Europe we don't use it for "government interference with your sex life, unprotected gang rape from corporations and bombing people who won't sell you oil", but about human rights and national self-determination. 
Also, I think it's time the OP showed his birth certificate. He looks suspicious to me.
Also, I think it's time the OP showed his birth certificate. He looks suspicious to me.
Speak for your own country, there are still 3rd world countries left in Europe, although we're catching up with the EU.MadVader said:
However, joking aside it's quite obvious that Obama is much more popular in Europe than Bush junior was, but it seems that Bush senior was more popular than both of them, don't know how was in the US though.
He got kicked out after 4 years due to the economy.
Rifleman
Knight
@Suspicious Pilgrim: Liberal Americans are Americans too, they're just not cynics yet.
Anyway, Obama is most definitely a natural American. His mother was an American, and the citizenship laws clearly state that that makes him American, despite all the idiots who claim otherwise. Please stop embarrassing conservatives. We have a hard enough time getting heard without being ridiculed as it is.
@MadVader: The corporations do use protection. They wear condoms before they violate people so that they don't have to spend too much money to clean up their messes.
Anyway, Obama is most definitely a natural American. His mother was an American, and the citizenship laws clearly state that that makes him American, despite all the idiots who claim otherwise. Please stop embarrassing conservatives. We have a hard enough time getting heard without being ridiculed as it is.
@MadVader: The corporations do use protection. They wear condoms before they violate people so that they don't have to spend too much money to clean up their messes.
Mage246
Well, Walmart can't afford condoms, and when they can they're shoddy and break apart on use. And Apple refuses to wear condoms as a "style choice" that we're not allowed to question. Plus, you can trust Apple when it says it's free from viruses, right? Right!?!?
Not that I've thrown my hat on this particular issue either way, but there are tighter rules for presidency than simply being a citizen at birth. IIRC, you also have to be born on legitimately owned American territory or in a warzone where American troops are officially present.Rifleman said:@Suspicious Pilgrim: Liberal Americans are Americans too, they're just not cynics yet.
Anyway, Obama is most definitely a natural American. His mother was an American, and the citizenship laws clearly state that that makes him American, despite all the idiots who claim otherwise. Please stop embarrassing conservatives. We have a hard enough time getting heard without being ridiculed as it is.
@MadVader: The corporations do use protection. They wear condoms before they violate people so that they don't have to spend too much money to clean up their messes.
Yes, the Canal Zone or any US military base also counts.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-report-card.htm
Kobrag said:
Oh, he's bringing up that ****? Then it'd be good to inform him that the laws allowing people to be arrested for protesting in restricted areas have been around since the 70's, and grew in size and scope under Bush. Not Obama. The only change that has been made during Obama's presidency has been to what they're able to criminally charge you for. Previously, in order to be charged you had to both know that the area you were entering was restricted and know it was a crime to be trespassing there. Now you only need to know that it is a restricted area. Kind of common sense really.
Madnes5 said:
Oh lord, you're ****ing retarded.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/25/5_reasons_obama_will_win_in_november?wpisrc=obinsite
All hail OBUMMER!
Also, this:
All hail OBUMMER!
Also, this:
4 and to a certain extent, 3 seem like the only real reasons. The rest was...a sermon intended for a choir.
The article also seems self defeating. Voter turnout is less when you think your guy is going to win anyway. Then again, cognitive bias might effect the swing voters positively.
The article also seems self defeating. Voter turnout is less when you think your guy is going to win anyway. Then again, cognitive bias might effect the swing voters positively.
The last one is pretty accurate in my opinion.
Last one is the best, but I feel bad for Dany getting compared in any way shape or form to Palin.Suspicious Pilgrim said:
Rifleman
Knight
Honestly, my vote is probably going to go to Romney because I feel like he's the best poison the country can pick. I don't like any of the candidates, but as Romney is probably going to win our Republican primary, I'm focusing on him. I'm split on Romney. He seems to have a deeper level of hypocrisy than Obama does, and I don't have confidence in his ability to lead us on the homefront. On the other hand, I tend to agree with his foreign policy of "American exceptionalism" - not in that we are better than other countries, which a lot of people do, but in that we have a specific mission to help other nations' populaces develop liberties and freedoms. That's an important distinction that a lot of people overlook. I'm not saying that America is inherently better than any other nation or that Americans are just naturally better than people of other nations, and I want to clarify that immediately. I'm saying America has a responsibility to lead other nations towards "liberty and justice for all" and separation of church and state, and away from dictatorships or oppressive government. This is in the same way that an NCO has a responsibility to lead his privates or an officer has a responsibility to lead his enlisted men, but is not inherently better or more worthy than them; he just has the responsibility to lead. It's an imperfect parallel, but it's generally the concept in my head I'm trying to explain.
To quote Reagan (yeah yeah, most of you probably dislike Reagan): "...I've spoken of the shining city [America] all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still...". To quote Kennedy (who y'all probably like better): ."..."We must always consider", he [John Winthrop] said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us". Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill — constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities...History will not judge our endeavors—and a government cannot be selected—merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these. For of those to whom much is given, much is required..."
While America might fall short of the shining example that these two former Presidents espouse, I still believe we can be an example to the world when we struggle through the difficulties we've been experiencing since 9/11 and find stability and peace again. We have a crisis coming, and when we get through it, we'll be in a new era in which we really can be a "City upon a Hill", instead of a somewhat cracked and shattered village.
To go off of that long-winded explanation (I know it wasn't exactly on topic, but I felt it necessary to explain my personal view thoroughly so people understand instead of just perceiving me as a world-hating American who believes freedom is the only way for the world now). I know that Romney espouses the idea of spreading republicanism throughout the world, and gradually loosening the iron fists that so many countries are governed by. From a personal perspective, that probably means that I'll be deployed more frequently, which I can't say I would hate. Unfortunately, I disagree with many of his other views; for example, his stance on China and Russia. China's been moving towards laissez-faire and greater freedoms for years, and I disagree that they're economic rivals. I think most of our differences with China are rhetoric and that we're likely to become allies with them in the future - maybe not the near future, but the future. I know that militarily we used to have joint training exercises with the Chinese (I actually wish I'd been able to do one), and though those have been suspended, I don't see China and America ever becoming enemies.
I do agree with his statements about the War on Terror and his support for President Bush, and I tend to agree with his foreign policy in general. His domestic policies are somewhat in line with mine, definitely on finances (although I wish he had an actual plan), and his support of the military and spending. His support of gun control is kind of unfortunate, but at least he supports the owning and carrying of handguns, so compared to some candidates, that's neutral for me. With civil rights, he flip-flops a lot, so I don't know what to make of that. He does support the right to have abortions (although on a state level, which is a definite plus in his favor for me, since I already support granting states greater rights) and pushes planned parenthood. Ultimately, a lot of his views are in line with mine, although I differ with some of them drastically, but he espouses far more similar beliefs to me than Obama, so my vote is probably going to go to him. Not that I'm naive enough to believe that his espoused beliefs will completely align with his enacted beliefs, although I'm hoping he'll be better than Obama and about as good as Bush was with that.
To quote Reagan (yeah yeah, most of you probably dislike Reagan): "...I've spoken of the shining city [America] all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still...". To quote Kennedy (who y'all probably like better): ."..."We must always consider", he [John Winthrop] said, "that we shall be as a city upon a hill—the eyes of all people are upon us". Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us—and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill — constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities...History will not judge our endeavors—and a government cannot be selected—merely on the basis of color or creed or even party affiliation. Neither will competence and loyalty and stature, while essential to the utmost, suffice in times such as these. For of those to whom much is given, much is required..."
While America might fall short of the shining example that these two former Presidents espouse, I still believe we can be an example to the world when we struggle through the difficulties we've been experiencing since 9/11 and find stability and peace again. We have a crisis coming, and when we get through it, we'll be in a new era in which we really can be a "City upon a Hill", instead of a somewhat cracked and shattered village.
To go off of that long-winded explanation (I know it wasn't exactly on topic, but I felt it necessary to explain my personal view thoroughly so people understand instead of just perceiving me as a world-hating American who believes freedom is the only way for the world now). I know that Romney espouses the idea of spreading republicanism throughout the world, and gradually loosening the iron fists that so many countries are governed by. From a personal perspective, that probably means that I'll be deployed more frequently, which I can't say I would hate. Unfortunately, I disagree with many of his other views; for example, his stance on China and Russia. China's been moving towards laissez-faire and greater freedoms for years, and I disagree that they're economic rivals. I think most of our differences with China are rhetoric and that we're likely to become allies with them in the future - maybe not the near future, but the future. I know that militarily we used to have joint training exercises with the Chinese (I actually wish I'd been able to do one), and though those have been suspended, I don't see China and America ever becoming enemies.
I do agree with his statements about the War on Terror and his support for President Bush, and I tend to agree with his foreign policy in general. His domestic policies are somewhat in line with mine, definitely on finances (although I wish he had an actual plan), and his support of the military and spending. His support of gun control is kind of unfortunate, but at least he supports the owning and carrying of handguns, so compared to some candidates, that's neutral for me. With civil rights, he flip-flops a lot, so I don't know what to make of that. He does support the right to have abortions (although on a state level, which is a definite plus in his favor for me, since I already support granting states greater rights) and pushes planned parenthood. Ultimately, a lot of his views are in line with mine, although I differ with some of them drastically, but he espouses far more similar beliefs to me than Obama, so my vote is probably going to go to him. Not that I'm naive enough to believe that his espoused beliefs will completely align with his enacted beliefs, although I'm hoping he'll be better than Obama and about as good as Bush was with that.
