McCain ineligible for presidency?

It's basically just an argument of semantics that holds no actual legal water. The constitution doesn't define 'natural born citizen' as having to be born physically within the United States, and the law as it is states that McCain, being born to two United States Citizens is, indeed, a natural born citizen, regardless of whether or not he's born within US territory.

Also: Hitlery? really? ugh.

Touché.  While Hilary is certainly not my first choice for the leader of the free world, I have yet to hear her calling for the mass extermination of anyone.  Maybe she is holding that back until after the Primaries are over...

Such name calling seems to be nothing more than alarmist/reactionary types with little better to contribute.  Yes, the two part system is messed up.  Yes, it reduces us to voting for the better of two evils.  Yes, the electoral college means my vote as a resident in Massachusetts almost doesnt count, and due to the nature of the beat my vote in the primary is almost more important, since it *might* carry some sway, but even then I am only voting for the candidate that I think has the stronger capacity to beat the other guy.  And that is assuming the delegates have not already been bought, bartered, and sold.  Never mind the super-delegates.  So, I agree, Hilary is far less than she claims to be and has a lot of experience in starting projects that sound good but end of failing which is just as well since they weren't all that good to begin with.   And she is part of a system that is broken.  But, work to fix that system, or at the least strongly advocating for and supporting your desired candidate, be it Republican, Democrat (two categories that are worthless in the modern American political and social milieus anyway) or Green party or whatever.  Dont resort to childish puns that, ultimately, just belittle any of your good intentions.

As frightening as McCain is, Huckabee is aa LOT more frightening.  The only un-scary part about Huckabee is that he is too crazy to win a general election.  Conversely, McCain is good at being self-effacing and funny, and winning over viewers/voters without admitting to or discussing his policy ideas, which makes him even more firghtening, in terms of competition ina  general election race.

I dont know if this rumor is true or not, but it would be a further step in the degradation of the American political system if he did.  Just as how Joe Lieberman switched to an Independent when he lost to Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race, and then beat Lamony by a narrow margin, which totally frustrated the hell out of me then (and those I know who voted for Lieberman went with the same argument as Clinton supporters, and are, most likely Clinton supporters... it is an ignorance of issues and a focus on "Experience.")

Ron Paul more closely resembles a "true Republican" than other person in the Republican primary.  He very distinctly favors small government, state-by-state regulations, disassembly of the CIA and other imperialist and spying branches of the US, and of course supports the growth of big business and industry in a "competetive market," while leaving the actual consumer left to fend for themselves amidst a sea of HMOs, poor schools that will be even more poorly funded, irrelevent tax cuts that serve no one in the middle class or below, and other miscellaneous Republican BS.  But at least he doesnt confuse "moral values" with the ideals of the Republican party.  Though a social conservative, no doubt, as well as a political conservative, at least he did not, like Huckabee, write a book in which he compared homosexuality to necrophilia.  But if this person, the strongest paradigmatic example of what a conservative republican truly is, by definition, that our country has seen in a while, ends up running as an Independent, joing the ranks of Ross Perot and the like, well, it might serve the Democratic party well by dividing the republican vote, but it does not reflect well on the stability or legitimacy of our "Democratic process."

Ron Paul came out a day or two ago and stated adamantly that he would continue running as a Republican.  Not that people haven't said one thing publicly and gone and done the other before.  But that's just the last I heard about that business.

I'd like to take up the arguement for homosexuality being compared to necrophilia. Why can't necrophilia be just as accepted as homosexuality? Who are you to tell me who I can or can't sleep with?

I don't think dead dudes can have consensual sex. Unless, maybe, there's a clause in their will something to the effect of, "Yeah, dudes, go to town, what the fuck do I care, I'm dead."

EDIT: blah, too slow!

EDITEDIT: well, now that edit doesn't make sense.

Oh, how many poor men in jail have thought the same.

There are actual laws against violating a corpse. There are no laws (to my knowledge) against homosexuality, although there are laws against sodomy in some states. I think it's weird the length people will go to to defame homosexuals. Especially that whole "man-on-dog marriage" argument. It's psychotic.

the point i'm trying to make is that we all set moral limits whether we want to realize we do or not.

Of course we all set moral limits, and to a great extent these are a good thing, they are exemplars of a shared humanity.  But, we are human beings, and one of the tragic flaws of our existence is that we have a natural tendency to construct our own personal identities by demonizing that which we are not. 

I doubt I could speak to it as articulately now as when I am not tired, but I would say that evaluating homosexuality on moral grounds and evaluating necrophilia on moral grounds are not analagous, and to make such a comparison as an inerrant attempt at proving your point. 

Almost all moral justification against condemning homosexuality stems from religious interpretation, some of which are actually misinterpreted.  And, at least as far as the Christian and Hebrew admonitions against homosexuality go, they were historically included in the Bible as an attempt at otherizing greek and pagan cultures, to promote the authority and legitimacy fo the christian empire and way of thought.  They were derived from human's desire to gain power and control. 

Whereas the moral ground that argues necrophilia is based on the respect of the dead, and of the living family of that dead, which transcends almost all faith traditions and is not based in power struggles or personal advacement.

New stuff.

Another piece was just posted saying that being born in that area does not qualify anyone for naturalized citizenship, however, it then means that if two American citizens have a child outside of US soil, is their child recognized at birth as a citizen? I know the amendment to the Constitution is vague, but it has been upheld that 'anchor babies' are legal, which sets a precedent that being born on the soil is a factor, but does that exclude the foreign territory thing, or does it expand the definition of naturalized?

Though Hitler is best remembered for his extermination of minority groups, he was responsible for many important changes occurring in Doychland that had to happen before he started gassing and massacring people. We know he didn't get elected on the 'kill the jews' ticket, he ran on uniting Germany and re-establishing the economy. He did this through a form of national socialism, an authoritarian monopoly by government anointed business with an industro-military complex. His people were happy, and traded their depression for obedience, which allowed Hitler to do the things we remember him in history for. Hitlery Rodman Clinton aspires to establish the same system. We all pay into the same system, we all subscribe to the government monopoly, but we don't call it socialism because true socialists (like D Kucin) don't want that system. They're both wrong, but one is evil and the other is just incorrect.

People often equated fascism with the 'right' side of politics because Hitler went after the 'immoral', according to his definition. Liberals are often equated with civil liberties, but where did Hitlery vote on the Patriot Act? National ID? "Paper please, muthaf**ka." I'll have none of it. Oh yeah, and who said this..."This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" That was Hitler, pre killing everybody. I could find Hillary quotes supporting gun control and registration that almost mirror that, but we've all heard them before. I share Edward Abbey's views on the issue, "If guns are outlawed, I intent to be among the outlaws." I don't want to be an outlaw, so F%%K anyone trying to make me one.

Quite a petty topic, indeed, over the authenticity of this nickname. Equating this to Pulp, we're having a ballpark-league-sport debate. You guys are saying different league, or sport even, but I defend that its the same ballpark when they hold the same views. We knew just as much about Hitler then as we know about Hitlery now. Neither has proposed massacres in the streets, though neither has condemned, especially more clear in Hitlery's unwillingness to condemn the actions at Waco, where her husband's staff psychologically tortured and slaughtered a compound full of families who had, until the ATF showed up, guns blazing, hurt no one. According to David Hardy, the missing files from Waco including the preliminary analysis of the evidence that went missing disappeared under the arm of Hitlery's chief of staff. Shortly thereafter, Vince Foster wondered away from Capital Hill and was found dead from a gunshot wound that was ruled a suicide. Hitler and Hitlery is the same f**kin ballpark.

But whatever, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter, we'll all be on the same side during the revolution...hopefully.

Word. Well, that's a let down. Thanks for doing the research.

No problemo. I have no life, so, really, it's nice to kill time doing something.

Also, I feel like I need to mention Godwin's Law in this thread.

It seems like she's been being called Hitlery ever since rush limbaugh and the mid-90's when feminazi started popping up too.

why should we feel shame? I agree we should get in there and help them out but the US was pretty much tail end charlie to both world wars, should we feel shame for those as well? or are they far enough in the past to forget that

Giggan,

I think as the last 8 years as well as some recent publications have shown, the neo-cons are a much greater threat for facism in American than the Clintons ever will be.  But "George W. Bush" and "Mike Huckabee" and "John McCain" have no phonological similarities to Hitler, so you choose not to call them on it.  Whatever.   It is clear you're a Ron Paul supporter, as are many over overly enthusiastic young American males, my brother included.  (He will be the first to tell you, though, that Obama is his close second choice.  I dont know about you.) 

However, as someone who obviously cares about the political system in our country, I would urge you to try to recognize  a rational viewpoint.  The points you are making speak to an alarmist and extremist point of view, and come across as a mix of juvenile, irrational and conspiracy theory-esque.  I am not sayinf you embody any of these qualities, but your arguments do.  I have no doubt that you are capable of forming coherent, logical arguments that support your cause and have enough decency and coherency to be accepted in a progressive (not even normalized) political milieu.  I disagree with a LOT of what Ron Paul stands for, I think that while some of his ideologies are on the right track the majority of them are severly misguided, and would cause more harm to our country and our citizens than they would good.  I believe guns should be much more rigidly controlled, I think health care should be, if not based ona socialist system than largely subsidized by the federal givernment, and I believe civil liberties need to be established on a federal level, not a state-to-state level, if for no other reason than to assure that all human beings living in America deserve the right to be treated as equal humans, and a state self regulation would not insure this, and could, in the future, lead to separatists movement that I think would be bad overall for our country.  And those are just a few of my problems with Ron Paul.  So you are not going to convince me of his campaign nor the benefits of his plitical machinations or ideas.  However, I have enagged in debate with more than one person, my brother included, who were vehement Ron Paul supporters and were able to form mature, logical arguments in support of his poilicies, not based on conjectures, conspiracy theories, and hyperboles.  Some of my opinions on specific Ron Paul talking points were swayed, others were not.  But it is not impossible to be an ardent Ron Paul enthusiast, and to do so without coming off as an uneducated jackass. 

Of course Adolf Hitler did not run his campaign on mass exterminations.  And yes, it was about unification and the strengthening of the German people.  And, yes, he actually did improve the German economy, or at least he seemd as if his policies were going to do so, before he let his true colors through.  But, let me tell you something.  All of our candidates are advocating unifying our country.  They are all advocating improving our economy.  Even Ron Paul.  His ways of doing may be drastically different than other candidates, but it is the same message.  We need to unite as a country and pull our economy out of the multi-trillion dollar hole it is in.  We need to make ourselevs not dependent on China nor on foriegn oil and be a true, independt Democracy again. 

But, to seriously maintain comparisons between Hilary Clinton and Adolf Hitler is absolutely ludicrous.  Can you say she seems to be moving towards a neo-fascist, neosocialist agenda?  Well, I might disagree with you, but you could try and make that claim, and do so seriously and legitimately.  Does that mean she is like Hitler?  No, not at all.  It is impossible, in the light of history, to accept Hitler as any sort of political being without taking into consideration the devastation he caused.  Do I like Hilary?  No.  Do I think she may want to manipulate our giverment in ways I do not like?  Yes.  Do I think that, in order to achieve more power and control, she would ever consider instigating a national genocide?  No, absolutely not.  ESPECIALLY not against American citizens.  Might her foreign policies may include the cultural and political domination of other countries that could result in modern day genocides, and might her defense or pre-emptive strike policies result in the killing masses of innocent civilians?  Maybe, and it is certainly not something I agree with.  Thats partially why she did not get my vote.  But that is fundamentally different than being responsible for the death of over 40 million people, and doing it not because they were ideological or political opponenets, and not because they were threats to your national sovereignty or safety, but because they were what you considered to be impure and inhuman.  So, no, I fail to acknowledge ANY comparison bewteen Hilary Clinton and Hitler as being remotely accurate.  And while George W. Bush is assuredly closer to Hitler in ideologies, practices and intentions than Hilary is, to be entirely fair and unpartisan, it would still be a hyperbole to make such a comparison in seriousness.  And, in the end, such comparisons, when made, reek of blind fanaticism, immaturity, and lack of intellectual honesty.  Hilary has made a LOT of poor decisions in her tenure, both as Senator, first lady, and presidential candidate.  You can highlight all of those things in a significantly more effective manner than such infantile and misguided comparisons.   As long as Hitler is responsible for the atrocities of the Holocaust, unless you seriously believe another candidate is setting us on a path that will lead to the same sort of destruction, such comparisons are for effect only.  An attempt at using alarmist reasoning and scare tactics, buffered by a few economic "facts," to try to convince others of the superiority of your point of view.  Muscle scare tactics, nothing more, probably less.

I am not supporting Hilary, by any stretch of the imagination.  Do I think she will serve our country better than Ron Paul?  And by better, I mean specifically will she affect more positive change for the greater majority of Amricans, as a result of economic, defense and international policies?  Yes, I most certainly do.  I think Ron Paul would if allowed to run our country, while not ruin it, would certainly do it no favors.  But this discussion is not about either of those things.  It is about our, as citizens of this country with opinions about important political matters, ability to form coherent, educated, logical arguments without depending on fanaticism, hypocrisy, hyperboles, intellectual dishonesty, scare tactics, extremism or immaturity.  I have no doubt you are capable of this, the content of your posts show that you care about your candidate and his views and you are willing to do leg work to understand them and compare them with others.  But using a term like "Hitlery" degrades your entire argument, and does not make me want to take a single thing you say seriously.  Like me, you are a young adult.  I am not many years your senior, and am not pretending to be.  But in order for our generation to take its rightful place among the grownups, and be active and intelligent participants in this political and social process, we need to stop acting like infants.

I guess it depends on who the "we" entails, yeah?

Does it entail we, America, as a unified country with a singular international voice?  Or does it entail me, my personal beliefs and causes?  Or my political party?  Or my candidate?

I do not feel shame about any of the genocides, because I have had no part in any of them - I did not elect officials involved, I did not support decisions made.  I protested / still protest, I work against injustice and human suffering, and the instability of power.  I do not feel shame for any of this.  I feel compassion, frustration, sadness, hopeless, anger, useless, love, and a mess of other feelings, some more legitimate than others.  But I can only feel shame for my actions, be they verbal, mental, or physical.  I cannot take the burden of others in such a direct way, it is neither fruitful nor beneficial.  Will you, word alchemist , feel shame when the truth of the genocide in Darfur is globally accepted, America's roles, implicit and explicit, both in action and lack of action, are expose?  No, because you fought to help end it, so you have nothign to be shameful for.

Now, do I feel our country, as a whole, is disgraced by our poor track record of upholding the value of human life, in our own country and aborad?  Yes, certainly.  Do I think the American political machine should be ashamed of its actions and inactions that allowed and sometimes encouraged this loss of life to occur?  In many cases, certainly.  But as a member of the American populace, and one who openly and actively expresses my beliefs and donates time, money, and energy to the causes I believe in, I cannot be ashamed of anything besides my own beliefs and my own role in the suffering of others.  If I have worked as hard as I can to help end suffering, what have I, personally,  to be ashamed of?

Can a person marry a man and a woman at the same time?  Is that still considered poligamy?