In today's Los Angeles Times:


http://blogs.sites.post-gazette.com/..._One_Of_Us.jpg

Okay. First I have to clear up what may be a misunderstanding on my part. When you said "By some of your definitions of 'citizen' they'll be eligible because they were born on our side of some line on a map. Natural born by definition means born of 2 citizen parents.", to what exactly were you referring? Obama? Are you of the opinion that he shouldn't have US citizenship because only one of his parents was born here? I agree that granting citizenship to a baby whose parents just happen to be visiting here might be going to far. But if two people are granted citizenship and their baby is born here, is he not "natural born"?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, so I'll ask for a clarification: Exactly what point were you trying to make in the first place.

[edit] Okay, now I'm more confused. I just read your reply to Razark: But you say that immediately after quoting yourself as giving a definition. So, is your definition not an actual definition?

Did you read my post?

Can you read?

Where's the middle finger smiley?

I don't get it. Obama, accompanied by a confused looking, short red-headed guy (Danny Bonaduce?) is caught stealing Lady Liberty and Uncle Sam's XBox and TV and offers them a birth certificate? Why is Obama stealing XBoxes? Who's the redheaded guy and why is he carrying Obama's birth certificate?

That's....very odd.

So the root of this is.
A citizen due to being born on your side of a line on a map....that fits.
2 parents for natural born....thats bollox.
Then it diverges into being born on the other side of your line which is irrelevant unless you are a birther who believes it was kenya indonesia or krypton in which case it is really irrelevant.
then it comes to the conditions needed for the parents if the irrevant stuff happened top be real which it isn't so that is irrelevant unless you are a birther who thinks your president cmes from somewhere else.
So the initial claim by Maddog was indeed bollox and all the attempts since then are really irrelvant to the status of a person being born on your side of the line.
Hey do the math 14+5=19 or in reality look at the numbers...what was the date:rotfl2:

He can and I thought the very same after reading your post.
It was quite funny when you claimed the other topic degenerated into sexual territory when the Palin fans were the ones drooling for their darling right from the opening post.

Really? It seems to me that the metaphor of robbing and trashing the country while acting like a tardily produced document is going to make all that ok is pretty clear.

Oh and as for the redhead that is obviously White House Spokesman Jay Carney.

Yeah but the birthers are the ones who were screaming for the document. It's not like he just out of the blue said "oh here's my birth certificate, now everyone opposed to my economic policies go out and vote for me!" I know I'm being a bit pedantic and editorial cartoons are usually very forced and stupid 99% of the time, but this one just struck me as very "out there." Ah well. Putting too much thought into this. :O:

Oh...I didn't even know who that was until I googled him. I don't watch any of his press conferences or speeches. It's all hot air.

It also can be read as Obama trashing the country in front of their eyes while they waste time with the triviality of the birth certificate. Sort of fiddling with the birther issue while USA burns. If only a portion of the effort expended on the birther nonsense were spent on trying to solve real problems, we might actually achieve some progress. This whole situation reminds me of the Clinton impeachment fiasco; a lot of wasted effort that came back to bite the Far Right big time.

As for Trump, Shakespeare said it best:

"...a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Go ahead birthers, Far Righters, and the lot of you; go ahead until the public tires of you and you lose the Congress and, eventually, the White House again. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And know that you will drag down the Republican Party with you. The Party is in danger of becoming like the Democrats in the 70's and 80's: embracing the unelectable issues of the extreme fringe of the party and embracing candidates either not qualified or so absurd the voting public will reject them in a sort of lesser of two evils situation. And pray the Tea Party or some other H. Ross Perot-like group doesn't field a candidate of their own like Trump or Palin and siphon off votes from the Republican candidate as happened in 1992.

Only in America.

Quite honestly, I don't think I can imagine such a stupid "issue" arise in any other part of the world. No disrespect to America or its citizens, but I think John Cleese said it best: "It's a bizarre mixture of the best and the worst."

And Trump? "I am very proud of myself". I'm speechless. Thank God for smileys :haha::haha::haha::har:

I'm sure there's a bunch of Democrats hoping for that very outcome but it ain't gonna happen.

Probably not, but I sure as hell can't see how these sorts of bickering can help the republican party in any way.