Posts Made By: David Cotterell

I'm a little surprised at the lack of discussion. The article only takes a couple of minutes to read and, in a nutshell, describes everyone who posts here pretty much perfectly. Well, it describes human beings, really, a small subset of whom (never more than 100 people) lurk here on the Politics Forum. The number of people who post regularly is even smaller with perhaps a dozen or so from the conservative side and a handful from the left. We all are utterly convinced that we are correct and not one of our frequent posters has EVER said, "Oh, you're right! That article/video/graph shows that I've been supporting an erroneous viewpoint. Thanks very much for opening my eyes...." Instead we say, "That source is biased." or " Here's a source that refutes your source" or "Those facts are not true (because I read somewhere blah, blah, blah)...." or we just resort to name-calling. (Everyone looks in mirror, shrugs) -- if you haven't said "That guy is a complete moron" in a post you've thought it to yourself, haven't you?!

Seems a bit hopeless, doesn't it? Can anyone suggest where we might go from here?

Dave

I think you should remember several extended vacations to the Crawford Ranch by Mr. Bush. Add up ALL the recreational time taken by these two presidents to date and divide by the number of days in office and I suspect the quotients will be in the same ballpark. You can bet that both were accompanied by staffers with cell phones and computer link-ups etc. so that they were in full connection to the events unfolding at the time. The US President is ALWAYS on the job, especially with the technology available today. Golf course or ranch - no problem. A non-issue, Mr. Elosser.

Dave

Just where, exactly, did you think the " US Agency for International Development " was going to throw money to train people? Foreign Aid such as this is at least a half-century old, dating back at least to the formation of the Peace Corps . It's just a more modern extension of the old saying: "Give a man a fish to feed him for a day, teach a man to fish to feed him for life."

And 'ferners' ? Xenophobic much?

Dave

Doug Matulis said:

Now libs have their very own gene to explain their insanity!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/28/researchers-liberal-gene-genetics-politics/

Well, there seems to be a germ of truth in the article. It seems if one is liberal (or conservative) one is ALL liberal (or conservative).

Look at the issues that divide us, libs and cons(?) in no particular order. Abortion pro/con, climate-change-caused-by-people or natural cycle, taxation, welfare, socialized medicine, FoxNews vs. PBS/NPR, tax or don't tax big corporations, immigration, absolute personal freedom vs. being a part of a larger social 'commons' and on and on.

Now go down the above list and imagine a person who is conservative on the first item, liberal on the second and alternating the rest of the way down the list.

You'd have a: Anti-abortion, Carbon Tax favoring, tax the wealthy, put-those-welfare-bums-to-work-or-let-them-starve, Free medical for all, Fox news trusting, tax the corporations, anti-immigration socialist. I wager that you couldn't find such a mixed up person in the whole of Western Civilization.

We seem to fall into these opposite camps entirely, not 50/50. "Moderates" don't fall alternately and fervently on the alternate opposites like the example above, but rather, are just less extreme in their espousal of the particular issue. A 'moderate' conservative will be on the same 'side' of the above issues as will the most radical tea-partier but they will vary on degree, and the intensity of their arguments.

The very fact is that neither the most liberal posters here, such as myself, nor the most conservative ones such as you-know-who-you-are have the slightest clue how on Earth their opposite number could possibly have begun to feel that way. We are iron-clad in our righteousness, our positions unassailable. And here's where I disagree with the title of the thread - there's not a gosh-darn thing wrong with ANY of us. We're all pretty nice folks, generally. Not mentally ill.

I know most of you guys have been to some Star Parties. There seems to be an unwritten rule there of 'no politics - no religion' in the general chats, socializing and talk. I certainly have never heard any at the ones I've been to. We talk about the Hobby exclusively.
Imagine four guys talking about the advantages/disadvantages of Newtonians vs. Refractors after lunch one day. Nice discussion - a few laughs - everyone learns a little something. We all walk away thinking what nice people those guys were...
Now imagine that the four guys were (apologies for using real names but the views of these folks are well known) myself, Richard Davis, Doug Matulis and Brian Lee. See?!? Nice people. Normal people. Not mentally ill.

Dave

Well it's about time the right got some activist judges.....

Dave

Hi, Rob. Let me step in here as one of the liberal-types. But I am not typical. I have posted this before but I am of a rare breed: A pro-life AND pro-choice liberal. Now, before you spit your coffee all over your key board let me explain (because my position does require some explaining).

First, I am an adopted person. My biological mother was a 20-year-old unwed mother in 1951. I often contemplate what she may have done if abortion had been commonly available back then. Rob, neither you nor I would want to daydream down that path for long... This history of mine has always strongly colored my opinion on the topic.

And so I am a strong supporter of the noble institution of adoption. My parents were wonderful people and I had a very 'Leave it to Beaver' sort of upbringing. I fully support and would strongly counsel any woman who finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy to bring it to term and give the child up for adoption. Especially if the child will be raised in better circumstances than the birth mother could likely offer (i.e. if she were poor, homeless etc.) I would encourage those who want strong anti-abortion LAWS to step up and adopt the babies that would result from said laws.

BUT I am very much against enshrining very restrictive anti-abortion sentiment into the laws of the land. This is harder to explain. I guess it is a matter of degree. i.e. is there ANY situation where abortion is justified? I doubt very much that you, Rob, as religious as you are (and I respect that - don't get me wrong) would deny abortions to rape and incest victims as well as to those mothers whose life is endangered by the pregnancy or the complications of the impending childbirth. I certainly would not want these sorts of abortions to become illegal. I am, on the other hand, very uncomfortable with late term abortions - especially when it is so late that our modern medical system's current state of the art with 'preemies' can reasonably be expected to save the life of the baby. But we again run into the matter of degree - after how many weeks is the fetus 'viable' these days? 20? 25? Who decides?

The spectrum of abortion tolerance therefore, logically, runs from 100% no abortions ever, no matter what, through to 100% no-limit abortion on demand, Both you and I stand somewhere in between these two positions, I suspect, but at somewhat different points. My detailed position is this as far as abortion LAW is concerned: Abortions available to rape, incest victims anytime during term. Abortions available in the first 25 weeks (or whatever time medical science can deal successfully with the 'preemie' and this may change with future medical progress) but with counselling for the adoption option being mandatory. Otherwise no abortions.

My position does not rely on the fetus/baby debate (is it or isn't it?) nor is it from any religious view. Just practicality along with a desire to convince as many women as possible with unwanted pregnancies to not have abortions by means of counselling, not by draconian executive action.

It's complicated. I tried to lay it out for you.

Dave

Lobby groups simply target the party in power - they don't care which party it is.. Right now that's the Dems so more lobby money is spent in their direction (they still throw lots of money at the '#2' party, of course) . The situation was opposite during the Bush years. And it will flip back again if the Repubs win in 2012.

Dave

Mike Strieber said:

Brings back great memories; how fondly I recall the joy of a spring sphere hunt in the yard with all my friends.

Seattle school renames Easter eggs 'Spring Spheres'
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=459668

Anyone want to be there's a liberal involved in this story somewhere?

I'm a liberal, Canadian, atheist, socialist old fart and I think being afraid to celebrate one religion in our multi-religious society while celebrating all the others is STUPID!

I'm sick of hearing, over the course of the year, 'happy Chanukah, Happy Dewali, Enjoy Eid, Have a great Passover with your family, hope your Ramadan is good' etc., etc., and then, when Christmas comes around we only hear a timid, 'Happy Holidays".

Talk about politically incorrect.....


BUT

Would one of our Christian correspondents please tell me how Easter, the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ came to be associated with CHOCOLATE EGGS LAID BY RABBITS?????????

Equally stupid.

Dave

The video is full of fail.

I found this definition of 'natural born citizen' online. Nowhere does it state that a person born in the USA has to have both parents be citizens as well. Any person covered below can be president.


Constitutional Topic: Citizenship


The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States * <------this is Obama
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. this is McCain
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. <----- or this is Mc Cain

Gee, even my girlfriend's son, born in Toronto, can be president according to this. His mother and father are both U.S citizens and lived most of their lives in the US. Both were in the US military and were stationed here on some sort of military exchange. They divorced while here, Dad went back to the US but mom and son stayed in Canada.

Dave

Thanks for providing the link to his speech. If I had to rely on your 'close approximation' to find out what he said I would get it nearly 100% WRONG.

Here is his concluding paragraph, verbatim:

To conclude, I agree with many serious climatologists who say that the warming we experience or is on the horizon will be very small. Convincing argumentation can be found in Ian Plimer’s recent book.[11] I agree with Bob Carter and others that it is difficult “to prove that the human effect on the climate can be measured” because “this effect is lost in the variability of natural climate changes”[12]. From the economic point of view, in case there will be no irrational interventions against it, the economic losses connected with such a modest warming will be very small. A loss generated as a result of a completely useless fight against global warming would be far greater.

Now look at your 'interpretation'.

You did actually read his article didn't you?

Dave