Palin chosen as McCain's VP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7588435.stm
To give equal opportunity to the other major party in US politics, here's the chance to discuss McCain's choice of a relative newcomer to "the scene". Will she balance out the ticket and "steal" votes from Obama from those who are disheartened with Obama and his choice in this years' presidential election?

:uhoh:

It really doesn't make any difference whether she is a newcomer or not but I am quite sure the Democrats will be on the attack. She is a female so go figure. The second female VP running mate in U.S. history. Probably excellent political strategy or it could backfire. Even without her at least 27% of Hillary's supporters were going to vote Republican anyways. See link below. So she may just be icing on the cake.

Click here (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/?iref=hpmostpop)

:popcorn:

Wow! Not a bad looker for a "hockey mom". 44 y.o., staunch conservative, former beauty queen and lifetime membership in the NRA. She sure beats that skag Geraldine Ferraro that ran on the Mondale ticket back in the 80s at least in looks. :lol:

Sarah Palin (http://www.mahalo.com/Sarah_Palin)


http://patriotroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/palin-5.JPG

Kind of ironic that for someone who put so much effort into belittling Obama for "inexperience" he picks someone for his VP slot that is far less experienced than Obama.

Very cool woman, but a shameful, and ineffective attempt to snap up Hillary supporters...

I think it is going to backfire on him to an extent. The very right wing conservative males that would never vote for a woman or a black man had their votes set on McCain... NOW what are they going to do??

I think it is going to backfire on him to an extent. The very right wing conservative males that would never vote for a woman or a black man had their votes set on McCain... NOW what are they going to do??

Nah! :grinno:

Even if what you are saying is taken as true the far right wingers definitely won't vote for the Democratic Party and Obama since he is black. As far as voting for females obviously they have voted in the past for female Republicans that ran for Congress and Governor. This gal, Palin is so far on or to the right that those guys are probably drooling over her. This lady goes hunting, pro gun and even eats Moose stew. What are they going to do?.....probably vote for the Republican Party, regardless of who is on the ticket.

The area where it might backfire, which is a big if, is in the Clinton supporters primarily females that are undecided or have considered defecting from the Democratic Party due to what happened to Hillary. Palin is big time pro life (anti-abortion) and is against same sex marriages. That alone does not settle well with Democrats/Liberals.

I think the pick of a woman was an attempt to win over Hillary's supporters whom McCain has been openly wooing. The problem is that Palin is so far opposite of Hillary that this might be seen as pandering to voters.

There really are no other qualifications to justify the choice.

It's an interesting pick no matter how you look at it. She's young, inexperienced, outside of Washington politics, and is a hard line conservative. Her extreme pro-life stance may heal appease true conservatives who are still suspicious of McCain. Moreover, she is female, which helps to tap into the current obsession with change, which will now happen whether Obama or McCain is elected.

On the negative side, she is extremely inexperienced, which begs the question...what happens if McCain doesn't make it through all 4 years? A first term governor with absolutely no national or international political experience, commanding one of the most powerful countries in the world? She is also currently under investigation for ethics violations, something Republicans need right now like a hole in the head.

Gonna be interesting to see what happens, but McCain did well to at least pick someone outside of the status quo.

The GOP got my wife's email address somehow and send her stuff all the time. Here's the latest from John McCain:

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/spacer.gif
My Friends, I am honored to announce that I have chosen Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as my choice for the Republican nominee for Vice President. As a father with three daughters, I can't express how proud I am to choose the first female Republican Vice-Presidential nominee.
http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/vp_accents.jpg (http://tracking.gop.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?1-18159-22483943-22242)
Sarah Palin is a trailblazer and a reformer. As the first female governor of Alaska, she challenged a corrupt system and has been a tireless advocate for reform - passing a landmark bill on ethics reform. She has taken on the old politics in Alaska and reformed the state's energy industry. She rejects wasteful pork barrel spending. She's fearless - exactly the type of leader I want at my side and the type of leadership we will bring to Washington.
My friends, together Sarah Palin and I make the strongest presidential ticket and I know that she joins me in asking for your support as we head into our Convention week in Minnesota. We're shaking things up in this campaign - and Governor Palin and I are ready to bring real reform to Washington.
The polls indicate this will be a tight race as we head into the fall campaign against Senators Obama and Biden. I expect the polls to remain close all the way up to Election Day and that is why any help you can give today (http://tracking.gop.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?1-18159-22483943-22242) will go a long way to make history on November 4th.
You may already know that I have decided to accept federal matching funds for the final months of this campaign- keeping a campaign promise I made. But that means that August 31st marks the last day I can accept your primary contribution. Will you make an immediate donation of whatever you can give- whether it's $50 or $500 to ensure Governor Palin and I win in November? (http://tracking.gop.com/cgi-bin/track.cgi?1-18159-22483943-22242)
You can be assured that as President and Vice President, Governor Palin and I will always put country before all else. We are ready to lead and I ask that you join our campaign today. Your support is deeply appreciated.
Sincerely,
http://www.johnmccain.com/images/email/mccainsig_150_0408.jpg
John McCain

She is in hot water for ethics violations in AK, and McCain had only met her once, the day before he nominated her.

Not to mention, McCain would be the oldest man ever in the white house, a vp's job is to take the presidents spot if he cant perform his duties. I do NOT trust a woman with 2 years governor experience in a state with 13 people and some caribou to run this country in this time. This pick is a desperate, and poorly thought out move by McCain to try and scratch at Hillary supporters.

Its very disheartening really, he is not putting the interests of the country first. He's pandering to laft-wing, liberal Hillary supporters with a pro-life, pro-gun, hardline conservative.

He's pandering to left-wing, liberal Hillary supporters with a pro-life, pro-gun, hardline conservative.

:confused:

How can you classify that as political pandering? "To the left-wing liberal Hillary supporters with a pro-life, pro-gun, hardline conservative". That doesn't make sense to me. :screwy:

:confused:

How can you classify that as political pandering? "To the left-wing liberal Hillary supporters with a pro-life, pro-gun, hardline conservative". That doesn't make sense to me. :screwy:

Don't fret, it doesn't to make sense to anyone.

John McCain calls Obama out on being too young inexperienced, so he nominates someone younger and more inexperienced than him.

Her nomination is merely a desperate attempt to gather Hillary supporters. He seems to think 18 million women are shallow enough to substitute one woman for another.

Are YOU honestly willing to put the future of our country in the hands of someone who has governed a state for 2 years, with a population less than 700,000? A woman who has spent the majority of her political career as a mayor of a town with a population of 8,500? A so-called "ethical" woman who is dead center of a ethics contraversy? A woman who John McCain had never even met until the day before her nomination?

Are YOU honestly willing to put the future of our country in the hands of someone who has governed a state for 2 years, with a population less than 700,000? A woman who has spent the majority of her political career as a mayor of a town with a population of 8,500? A so-called "ethical" woman who is dead center of a ethics contraversy? A woman who John McCain had never even met until the day before her nomination?

Lets see, didn't we elect a president back in 1992 whose only experience was being the governor of Arkansas? As for this "ethics contraversy" there is none. She had a kid with down syndrom big fucking deal.

Lets see, didn't we elect a president back in 1992 whose only experience was being the governor of Arkansas?

What happened to "Obama being too young and inexperienced", ya know, the same crap McCain has been spouting for weeks? Your right, we did elect a young governor in 92. And he did a helluva job. Thank you for making my argument for me :)

As for this "ethics contraversy" there is none. She had a kid with down syndrom big fucking deal.

:eek7:

WTF would make you think I was talking about her kids??

Do some research into your new VP choice....

What happened to "Obama being too young and inexperienced", ya know, the same crap McCain has been spouting for weeks?

Obama gets elected. Obama becomes president.
McCain gets elected. McCain becomes president.

When you see Palin in there as being elected president let me know.

Your right, we did elect a young governor in 92. And he did a helluva job. Thank you for making my argument for me :)

Perjury? Selling national secrets to China? Waco? Letting Bin Ladin go?

Yup helluva job.

:eek7:

WTF would make you think I was talking about her kids??

Do some research into your new VP choice....

All I've been hearing about is her choice to have a kid with down syndrom and her "radical" anti-abortion stance because of it.

Obama gets elected. Obama becomes president.
McCain gets elected. McCain becomes president.

When you see Palin in there as being elected president let me know.

I see McCain as an old fart with a history of melanoma. Seeing as the VP is next in line, there is a serious risk of Palin being called upon. When choosing a VP, a president must consider the position for which they are choosing a nominee. As the next in line for the presidency, they are virtually choosing a second string president. A veep nomination need not be a desperate publicity stunt to gain female voters.



Perjury? Selling national secrets to China? Waco? Letting Bin Ladin go?

Yup helluva job.


If you want to nitpick, I could rattle off a short list of negatives about ANY presidency with minimal research. I could rattle off a much larger list of positives Clinton brought to the United States during his 8 years. Not too mention his approval rating at the end...


All I've been hearing about is her choice to have a kid with down syndrom and her "radical" anti-abortion stance because of it.

Voters really need to start launching personal investigations to gather their own information from a variety of sources instead of relying on biased (left and right) tv stations and radio to fill in the blanks. A simple Google search of "Palin ethics controversy" would have brought a plethora of information.

But I'll go ahead and save you the trouble.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/mccains_vp_pick_palin_facing_e.html

I assume that only tv and radio stations are biased and not newspapers or the reporters that write for them. Get an education, talk to those you have one far above yours then see how the real world works. You can't say anything is truly unbiased unless it's a obsessed stalker of Coldplay who honestly believes that somewhere along the line they lost their way and screwed up on their latest album. Those people's opinions, you gotta take into some consideration. Don't act so smug and blatantly contradict your own evidence by saying don't listen to bias news providing a link to nothing more than an article in a newspaper.

Then why don't you F^%&ing run and do a better job. Here's the main idea as someone with experience in anything in life can tell you. You have to start somewhere. After an 8 year term the candidates are new to the presidency so why should we elect anyone that's never done it before? Because we have to.

I won't vote for Obama simply because I know he's useless. Even a lot of democrats agree his election will bring nothing besides the same ideas as Hillary only not pushed as hard. Either way it doesn't matter. When the time comes it comes and if someone doesn't want him there, or multiple people, they'll be gone. Simple as that.

Well since the edit button isn't working. The information came from an ex rep's BLOG :rolleyes: and the guy's political genius informed us that Palin would never be chosen as VP. This guy is banking on credibility.

Obviously we are not political geniuses nor can we predict the outcome of the upcoming election so we have to rely somewhat on the media regardless of the source for our information in order to make a careful or educated decision about which party and/or candidate to vote for in November. We can go on forever debating until we are blue in the face discussing the pros and cons or merits of a candidate regardless of party affiliation. But in the end it probably won't make any difference for many of us.

Here is a fairly good article or analysis about Palin and the possible risks being selected as the VP running mate. See link below. Obviously, McCain will have no major issues with the Republican political base or his conservative constituents since an overwhelming majority of Republicans approve of the decision. If nothing else it solidified the base which is what really counts. As I pointed out earlier before she was selected at least 27% of Hillary's supporters were most likely going to vote for McCain and obviously that is an issue of concern for the Democrats. Plus the inexperience argument alleged against Obama and now against Palin will probably be negated so we can get on to the issues that really count. :wink:

Choice of Palin Is a Bold Move by McCain, With Risks (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30assess.html)

I assume that only tv and radio stations are biased and not newspapers or the reporters that write for them.

You assume? You would be dead wrong. Anything written, or produced my humans is most likely going to be biased. Hell, even the two major newspapers here in Denver are rgith and left, respectively.

Get an education, talk to those you have one far above yours then see how the real world works. You can't say anything is truly unbiased unless it's a obsessed stalker of Coldplay who honestly believes that somewhere along the line they lost their way and screwed up on their latest album. Those people's opinions, you gotta take into some consideration.

:eek7:
Did you really tell me to get an education?

Don't act so smug and blatantly contradict your own evidence by saying don't listen to bias news providing a link to nothing more than an article in a newspaper.

I contradicted nothing. Answer me this question, is the summation of Palin's controversy correct in that article?

Yes it is. That was the point. Not to mention, had to understood my post, you would know, I never said "don't listen to bias news". I said people need "to gather their own information from a variety of sources instead of relying on biased (left and right) tv stations and radio to fill in the blanks".

Let me make that more clear for you, so you get it. Lazy voters need to get there asses in gear, and learn more about the candidates on there own. Quit letting biased news sources spoonfeed you everything they think you need to know.



Then why don't you F^%&ing run and do a better job. Here's the main idea as someone with experience in anything in life can tell you. You have to start somewhere. After an 8 year term the candidates are new to the presidency so why should we elect anyone that's never done it before? Because we have to.


I would run however I am not 36 years of age, so they wouldn't allow me on the ticket. I appreciate the support though, and I hope you'll remember me in 2024 :grinno:

And once again, thenk you for refuting McCain's arguments against Obama's inexperience for me. I couldn't have said it better.
[/QUOTE]



Obviously we are not political geniuses nor can we predict the outcome of the upcoming election so we have to rely somewhat on the media regardless of the source for our information in order to make a careful or educated decision about which party and/or candidate to vote for in November.

That's the point I was trying to make. We as voters need to be proactive to getout and do our own research.

I have to go to work now...I was supposed to be in a half an hour ago. Well see you all in a few hours. :smile:

Ace

at least 27% of Hillary's supporters were most likely going to vote for McCain and obviously that is an issue of concern for the Democrats.

That means 63% of Hillary supporters are not going with McCain and the numbers can change quickly, especially with the choice of Palin who is ideologicaly the opposite. Rember how bad the polling went in the primaries? Don't count on those numbers.

I like Cafferty's comment on CNN friday, to paraphrase: It will be a fun three days watching the Republicans defend this choise.

That means 63% of Hillary supporters are not going with McCain and the numbers can change quickly, especially with the choice of Palin who is ideologicaly the opposite. Rember how bad the polling went in the primaries? Don't count on those numbers.

I like Cafferty's comment on CNN friday, to paraphrase: It will be a fun three days watching the Republicans defend this choise.

Hate to be a nitpick, but that makes 73%, of course then you have to count in those that are undecided and those who are going to just sit on their hands. But for the sake of argument.....

That means 63% of Hillary supporters are not going with McCain and the numbers can change quickly, especially with the choice of Palin who is ideologicaly the opposite. Rember how bad the polling went in the primaries? Don't count on those numbers.

I like Cafferty's comment on CNN friday, to paraphrase: It will be a fun three days watching the Republicans defend this choise.

Hate to be a nitpick, but that makes 73%, of course then you have to count in those that are undecided and those who are going to just sit on their hands. But for the sake of argument.....

I would run however I am not 36 years of age, so they wouldn't allow me on the ticket. I appreciate the support though, and I hope you'll remember me in 2024 :grinno:


Ace
I don't think that would matter.... neither Obama nor McCain may be "Natural born citizens", and they are allowed to run. Surely age can be overlooked for someone with your qualifications. :tongue:

Obama would be okay if he were really born in Hawaii, but apparently there is some evidence that he was actually born in Kenya, as told by his family and Kenyan Hospital records, I haven't really felt the urge to look into it more, but I guess supposedly there aren't any records at either of the two hospitals he claimed to have been born at and his birth certificate that has been released was actually based on a registery of birth that was filed a few days after he was born. If he was really born in Kenya, his mom didn't meet the requirements for her child to be a US citizen.

McCain was born in Panama. Normally anyone born outside of the US to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen, but Panama was expressly excluded. A law passed after he was born changed that and said anyone born on or after that date would be considered a US citizen, however it made no mention of giving citizenship to those born before it took affect. The senate issued a non binding resolution saying that he was eligible, because they didn't feel the law was made to keep someone like McCain from running, but it is being challenged.

I seriously doubt McCain is an illegal immigrant. :lol: From all indications under U.S. law he is a child born abroad to American parent(s) so he is not disqualified from running for president like Arnold S. is. See below noting the Panama Canal Zone.


CHAPTER 1-NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
301 NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

302 PERSONS BORN IN PUERTO RICO ON OR AFTER APRIL 11, 1899
SEC. 302. [8 U.S.C. 1402] All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.

303 PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 26, 1904
SEC. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403]

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

I seriously doubt McCain is an illegal immigrant. :lol: From all indications under U.S. law he is a child born abroad to American parent(s) so he is not disqualified from running for president like Arnold S. is. See below noting the Panama Canal Zone.Yeah that was the law I was talking about, it wasn't put into place until a year after McCain was born. John McCain is definitely a US citizen, but there is doubt that he is a "Natural Born Citizen" (which is the requirement to be president) It makes anyone born on or after 1904 a US citizen. That law made everyone US citizens, but it didn't state that those already born be considered citizens from birth... only from that point forward. In order to be eligible for president, you have to have been a citizen at birth, not granted citizenship at 1 year old. Basically it says that all those people are now citizens, but it doesn't say that they always were. It comes down to the letter of the law and spirit of the law. By the letter of the law he is ineligible, but (as most agree) the spirit of the law as they believe it was intended says he can, hence the resolution from the Senate saying he can run.

Yeah that was the law I was talking about, it wasn't put into place until a year after McCain was born. .

I see what you are saying Chris. The year was 1952 which means he was around 16 years old when the law was codified. His DOB is August 29, 1936. I've seen the argument on that all over the Net and why the resolution was passed in McCain's case. Obviously he did not have to undergo the naturalization process to become an American citizen since the law mentions "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". IMO really not much interpretation needed. :dunno:

I see what you are saying Chris. The year was 1952 which means he was around 16 years old when the law was codified. His DOB is August 29, 1936. I've seen the argument on that all over the Net and why the resolution was passed in McCain's case. Obviously he did not have to undergo the naturalization process to become an American citizen since the law mentions "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". IMO really not much interpretation needed. :dunno:Actually it was 1937 when the law was created, right before his first birthday. I do see that the current revision was enacted 180 days after June 27, 1952, though.

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth"
That line doesn't apply, it is part of section 301. Citizenship for Panama is section 303.

No need to worry, though, it's not very likely to become an issue because most aren't willing to press the matter.


Here's an article I found that talks about it a little more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html

I think the professor in the article needs to go back to law school or get a new occupation. The law I cited was codified in 1952. Technically, the top part is what McCain falls under - 8 USC 1401(c) - "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person" and "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" is relevant and applicable. The bottom line is his citizenship status is covered by both sections under that statute.

This does a better job of explaining it than I'm probably doing.


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.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

I think the professor in the article needs to go back to law school or get a new occupation. The law I cited was codified in 1952. Technically, the top part is what McCain falls under - 8 USC 1401(c) - "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person" and "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" is relevant and applicable. The bottom line is his citizenship status is covered by both sections under that statute.

This does a better job of explaining it than I'm probably doing.It's a little more complicated than that though. The above is how the law reads, now. 1401c doesn't state that it applies to people that were born before it was enacted. When McCain was born there was another law similar to the one above that covered people born when it was active, it said basically the same thing, however it expressly excluded Panama. That was the reason that the other law was enacted on August 4, 1937, it was to make all the people citizens that the previous law excluded. The 1937 law is what made him a citizen, but didn't address his citizenship status before it was enacted. When Steve wrote the web page above he was trying to apply the current law to McCain, and it simply does not apply because he was born before it took effect, the law states that they shall be citizens at birth, it doesn't cover people that were already born.

Here's the info for the guy that wrote the above quoted text:

Common Name: Steve Mount
Formal Name: Stephen J J Mount
Title: Webmaster and researcher for USConstitution.net
Degree: Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1989, University of Vermont
Other formal learning: Constitutional Law, Community College of Vermont, 1999 (audit)
Relevant Experience:
Reporter, Vermont Cynic, 1986-1987
News Editor, Vermont Cynic, 1987-1988
Managing Editor, Vermont Cynic, 1988-1989
Webmaster/Editor-in-Chief, USConstitution.net, 1995-Present
Military Experience:
Vermont Army National Guard 1987-1992; tank loader, driver, gunner (M60A3). Stationed: Det. 1 1/172nd HHQ, Swanton, Vermont; Basic training and AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky. Honorable Discharge 1992.

All research done for the USConstitution.net site was done by me. All opinions are mine and mine alone, with the exception of messages posted by others in the Message Board.

It's a little more complicated than that though. The above is how the law reads, now.

Obviously complicated if we read too much into it. Are we sure the old laws referenced were not superceded? See below.


Immigration and Nationality Act

The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=f3829c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD




On the issue of this b.s. parsing of "natural born". :rolleyes: The first Congress enacted a citizenship law (Act of March 26, 1790, Chapter 3, Section 1, Statute 104) that stated “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind this gives clear evidence that the framers of the Constitution, some of whom served in the first Congress, understood “natural born citizens” to be those people who were born U.S. citizens regardless of where they were born.

Professor Chin. <-------:loser:


In his paper and in an interview, Professor Chin, a registered Democrat, said he had no political motive in raising the question.

Palin is actually the reason I decided to throw my vote away to Nader.

It's either an incredibly stupid ploy (some voters want to make history by electing a black man, now they can have a chance to make history by electing a female VP), or a really desperate move (ie, McCain couldn't find anybody better).

Now, McCain/Dole - that'd be the ticket:biggrin:

Palin is actually the reason I decided to throw my vote away to Nader.


You and the other 6 Nader supporters in CO.? :lol:

At least you're not voting for Obama so I'll give you credit there. :thumbsup:

You and the other 6 Nader supporters in CO.? :lol:

At least you're not voting for Obama so I'll give you credit there. :thumbsup:

He had a crowd of over 5000 at his speach... but of course the newspapers would never report on that.

He had a crowd of over 5000 at his speach... but of course the newspapers would never report on that.

I read someplace it was 4000 give or take. :sly: Plus he planned on having another rally during the RNC in St Paul. Regardless, nothing to brag about. :grinno:

As far as the media that is quite obvious considering the darling of the liberal mainstream media is Obama. So go figure.

The way I look at it the more Nader supporters the better. That way we can have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. The Demos blame Nader for Gore's loss in Florida. Of course this time around the results are unpredictable since candidates like Bob Barr (Libertarian) is in the mix now. On a recent Florida poll (Zogby) for what they are worth Barr pulled in 3% versus Obama 40% and McCain 43%. Nader's possible impact was not even mentioned.

Getting back on track Palin speaks at the RNC tonight.

Looks like their new campaign stickers are ready....


http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1765/mcsamemilfwp1.jpg

Looks like their new campaign stickers are ready....

:lol:

I like this one better.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/obama_biden.jpg















http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/republican.jpg

:lol:

I like this one better.


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/obama_biden.jpg















http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/republican.jpg http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5748/facewhistleln1.gif http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8986/iconmrgreenje8.gif

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o134/brettrules1980/barack___obama.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Obama/ObamaWhiteHouse.jpg

I read someplace it was 4000 give or take. :sly: Plus he planned on having another rally during the RNC in St Paul. Regardless, nothing to brag about. :grinno:

As far as the media that is quite obvious considering the darling of the liberal mainstream media is Obama. So go figure.

The way I look at it the more Nader supporters the better. That way we can have a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. The Demos blame Nader for Gore's loss in Florida. Of course this time around the results are unpredictable since candidates like Bob Barr (Libertarian) is in the mix now. On a recent Florida poll (Zogby) for what they are worth Barr pulled in 3% versus Obama 40% and McCain 43%. Nader's possible impact was not even mentioned.

Getting back on track Palin speaks at the RNC tonight.

God bless Bob Barr. I don't really think McCain has much of a chance, for obvious reasons anyway. And in reality, even if Nader hadn't run in 2000, the outcome would have been the same, the dems just wanted to blame somebody who wasn't their nomination (even if Gore did get a few more votes, he would have still lost because of the electoral college - which is an outdated POS, but I'm not going to go off on a tangent about that).

Nader's also got support from the republicans, Ben Stein for instance is endorsing Nader and has claimed that he will be voting for him - and Stein is a pretty (damned) conservative guy. But he's been donating money to some of Nader's non-profit organizations for ages now, and he's strongly opposed to corporate crime, so I guess it's not really that surprising.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5748/facewhistleln1.gif http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8986/iconmrgreenje8.gif

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o134/brettrules1980/barack___obama.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Obama/ObamaWhiteHouse.jpg

Thats classy...:disappoin

I maybe living in Australia and can't give two-fucks about your President race, but I'd rather Obama over a CREATIONIST to run a damn country. I mean, SHIT the guy thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, and has no idea what your constitution actually says.

Just that alone is counter-humor to any terrorist-satricalesque jokes you can make about Obama.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1053

We have a saying in Australia, "Tell him he's dreaming"

McCain is so ignorant to basic definitions of basic words, and people actually want to elect him in the highest office of the country?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_thread/thread/ca5b63409ae18682/42d7979bd29847de?lnk=raot

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12/mccain-creationism/


Just my two cents.

I don't think he's actually creationist, he's just whoring for votes right now.

I'd have more respect for him if he stood by his principles, instead of trying so hard to appeal to the Bush idiots.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5748/facewhistleln1.gif http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8986/iconmrgreenje8.gif

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o134/brettrules1980/barack___obama.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2/Davis1950/Obama/ObamaWhiteHouse.jpg

:rofl:

And KustmAce, it's HILARIOUS! Didn't you get a kick out of all those millions of pictures that made fun of George Bush? The ones that made him look like a monkey etc? And all the skits played out to make fun of him? Give me a break...

Nader's also got support from the republicans, Ben Stein for instance is endorsing Nader and has claimed that he will be voting for him - and Stein is a pretty (damned) conservative guy. But he's been donating money to some of Nader's non-profit organizations for ages now, and he's strongly opposed to corporate crime, so I guess it's not really that surprising.

True Republicans support the Republican Party regardless of the candidate so it sounds like speculation to me. The same is applicable to Democrats. Sad to say plenty of straight ticket voters in this country regardless of the issues.

You mean old Ben Stein the Hollywood Republican that still defends Richard Nixon to this day? :screwy:

He donates money to everybody and his brother probably even Obama. See link below. He donated quite a bit to McCain this year to include other Republicans so I would not make any assumptions on who he supports for POTUS. See link below.

Ben Stein's Campaign Contributions (http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ben_Stein.php)

Just like you Stein is an enigma. :lol:

True Republicans support the Republican Party regardless of the candidate so it sounds like speculation to me. The same is applicable to Democrats. Sad to say plenty of straight ticket voters in this country regardless of the issues.

You mean old Ben Stein the Hollywood Republican that still defends Richard Nixon to this day? :screwy:

He donates money to everybody and his brother probably even Obama. See link below. He donated quite a bit to McCain this year to include other Republicans so I would not make any assumptions on who he supports for POTUS. See link below.

Ben Stein's Campaign Contributions (http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ben_Stein.php)

Just like you Stein is an enigma. :lol:

He was on some TV show saying he was likely voting for Nader, though I can't remember which one. Maybe it's on youtube somewhere, I'll look for it.

Vote smart. Vote None of the above! :thumbsup:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Well, since Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate he has gained popularity in the poles, even passing Obama now. :D

Well, since Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate he has gained popularity in the poles, even passing Obama now. :D

It's like George Carlin said: think about how stupid the average person is, now remember that half of them are stupider than that. :grinyes:

Palin is useless, should McCain get elected she will hold a position that isn't worth a bucket of warm piss - but - she will help sway voters who don't understand this to vote for McCain. Yay dumb people:grinno:

It's like George Carlin said: think about how stupid the average person is, now remember that half of them are stupider than that. :grinyes:

Yeah but George Carlin is dead. I never liked him or his comedy anyways. :grinno:

What are you sexist? :lol:

Nah, I'm just pointing out that a bunch of people are thinking Palin is great, but forgetting they're not voting for her they're voting for McCain...
Clever marketing trick McCain, clever indeed.

Of course why anybody thinks Palin is great in the first place is a total mystery to me.
Honestly, what has she accomplished? I thought McCain and Obama had nothing to show...

Somebody who claims they're for individual freedom, but opposes same sex marriage, claims she supports use of contraceptives, but supports abstinence only sex-ed - :screwy: Well at least she's pretty good at double talk already.

I used to like George Carlin a lot. I agreed with much of the views that he expressed. That was until I listened to several of his albums back to back, after hearing all the contradictions in his convictions, I was then reminded that he was merely a comedian, and saying whatever he thought the audience wanted to hear. People speak of him as though he was a genius on politics and life, not realizing that he was just pandering to the audience.

I used to like George Carlin a lot. I agreed with much of the views that he expressed. That was until I listened to several of his albums back to back, after hearing all the contradictions in his convictions, I was then reminded that he was merely a comedian, and saying whatever he thought the audience wanted to hear. People speak of him as though he was a genius on politics and life, not realizing that he was just pandering to the audience.

In other words, he'd have made a perfect politician :lol:













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

In other words, he'd have made a perfect politician :lol:

He'll make an even better one now that he's dead and gets as much accomplished as one :icon16:

It's like George Carlin said: think about how stupid the average person is, now remember that half of them are stupider than that. :grinyes:

Palin is useless, should McCain get elected she will hold a position that isn't worth a bucket of warm piss - but - she will help sway voters who don't understand this to vote for McCain. Yay dumb people:grinno:

This statement is horrible in the sense remembering all the jokes that Cheney was doing all the real work and Bush wasn't as with a few VP's. So now people are changing the story that the president does all the work. It's no different than any job, the managers sit and supervise while the underlings do the hard labor right? It's always the assistant mangers, VP's, leaders, etc that do the manual stuff while the boss sits int he nice comfy chair.

Sorry, I see her doing more than McCain. He's blurt out an idea an say, "Now go girl. Use those feminine wiles to get it accomplished" as he winks and slaps her on the but. ;)

Oh wait, he's not Bill. :p

Great article by the way.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/09/05/the-issue-sarah-palin-must-address-i-want-to-see-her-naked/

Regardless of who does the work, ultimately it is the president who makes the decisions. So assuming Palin even ever comes up with a good idea (there's a laugh) - if McCain says no, he gets his way. If McCain says yes, and she says no - McCain gets his way.

As for Bush and Cheney, even if Cheney were pulling all the strings, Bush would still be the one nodding yes to everything.:p
Although I think the joke was more to the point that Bush is so inept that Cheney has to do everything for him anyway.

I have a feeling McCain is probably less inept than Palin. Of course that doesn't make him any more useful.

Honestly, what has she accomplished? I thought McCain and Obama had nothing to show...

She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined. Plus the military and Veterans have a favorable outlook on her. She appears to be doing fine overall with her interview with ABC's Charles Gibson.



but opposes same sex marriage........

:rolleyes:

IMO that is taken out of context. While probably true as Governor of Alaska she vetoed a bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional so it appears she is willing to uphold the law. She is a Republican so go figure. See link below.

Palin on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)

She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined.

The practical outcome of this for the average American has been what?

Plus the military and Veterans have a favorable outlook on her. She appears to be doing fine overall with her interview with ABC's Charles Gibson.

The practical outcome of this means what to the average American?




:rolleyes:

IMO that is taken out of context. While probably true as Governor of Alaska she vetoed a bill denying benefits to gays, as unconstitutional so it appears she is willing to uphold the law. She is a Republican so go figure. See link below.

Palin on the Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm)

Your own link says she opposes same sex marriage... I'm not quite sure how that differs from what I was saying.

Also, how about her claiming she supports free market capitalism - then she's supporting a $500,000,000 subsidy to a Canadian company to build a pipline?:screwy: Does she not understand what a free market economy is or how capitalism works?:shakehead

Then she wants people to drill in ANWR, then changes her mind and says they should drill offshore first - also claims that there is global warming, but that it is not man made (I wonder if all the oil in Alaska might have something to do with this sentiment - HMMMMMM - I WONDER?):iceslolan

As for her other takes on the environment and energy - it's obvious she doesn't giva a damn about the future, so much as letting some people make a quick buck at the expense of everybody else, and the United States' future.

Absolute idiot.

The practical outcome of this for the average American has been what?

You tell me and then we'll all know. I don't know about any practical outcome or what you perceive as a practical outcome but the outcome could be MCain/Palin beats Obama/Biden in November or they lose. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The odds are 50/50 since this country is split right down the middle as usual. Politics and the real issues affecting most Americans is local so I would be more concerned about why my local city council or county commissioners comprised of 90% Democrats oppose key issues on illegal immigration, allow the utility companies to kill us on rate hikes, charge us for ridiculous storm water fees that should have been covered in the basic bills going way back or continually jack up taxes.:banghead:

Your own link says she opposes same sex marriage... I'm not quite sure how that differs from what I was saying.

The link is for reference purposes and I don't see you supporting any of your comments or positions with any credible links other than rambling on. Especially the one on global warming. At least it gave you something to work with. :wink:

Obviously you did not read or comprehend my post. I said "while probably true". But you failed to acknowledge she will most likely uphold the law which is what really counts. What do you expect a conservative to say. "I support same sex marriages"? :rolleyes:.............. :runaround:

You tell me and then we'll all know. I don't know about any practical outcome or what you perceive as a practical outcome but the outcome could be MCain/Palin beats Obama/Biden in November or they lose. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The odds are 50/50 since this country is split right down the middle as usual. Politics and the real issues affecting most Americans is local so I would be more concerned about why my local city council or county commissioners comprised of 90% Democrats oppose key issues on illegal immigration, allow the utility companies to kill us on rate hikes, charge us for ridiculous storm water fees that should have been covered in the basic bills going way back or continually jack up taxes.:banghead:

No what I'm saying is, Nader gets car companies to put seat belts in their cars, Barr writes in sunset clauses for the Patriot Act to protect Americans civil liberties - and Palin has done what for America? She governs a state with practically no people in it, and has done nothing for the U.S. - and if she ever were in a position of power, given her stances and ideas she would royally screw the U.S. for perhaps decades to come by making bad decisions in the present.



The link is for reference purposes and I don't see you supporting any of your comments or positions with any credible links other than rambling on.
The pipeline news is pretty well known...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=TRP%3ACN&sid=a2iPGqDweG.E
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11pipeline.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

Global warming:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/palin-global-wa.html
I guess she flip flopped about the refuge again:
"Palin and McCain disagree on another key environmental issue: drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in Palin’s home state of Alaska. Palin is for it, while McCain wants to keep the refuge off-limits."

Obviously you did not read or comprehend my post. I said "while probably true". But you failed to acknowledge she will most likely uphold the law which is what really counts. What do you expect a conservative to say. "I support same sex marriages"? :rolleyes:.............. :runaround:

You're the one trying to make a case for this schmuck, you should be supporting your claims.
She has a very naive understanding of the U.S. energy needs, and apparently lacks any long term vision for our country on this front.
If McCain gets elected, the most useful thing he could do for this country is protect us from Palin's horrendously misguided and illogical ideas.

Oh crap. I'm tired of this global warming BS. It exists and we don't help it. By that I mean we don't help in adding to it but at the same time our feeble contributions hardly accelerate global warming. Besides that, you want to base this on science, there is none.

They're comparing the earth to a time they have no clue about. Where there is still debate if the year is billions of years old, to millions, to even possibly thousands. Unfortunately so many people out there are beyond the ability to be helped in an actual education on it, everyone needs to start saying "Let's save the earth" or else they'd get no where.

Drill Alaska.

And honestly, is Obama a great choice to help? He wants to practically dismantle the military. That issue alone screws America. Although in all honesty he wouldn't get anything done in his "vision" of a "New America" Sorry, he should be smart enough to know what will happen if he got elected.