Ladies and Girlie men

No . . . it is not. The subject has never come up before, and has only been broached since the Governator appeared on the scene.

Denying rights to immigrants? Because there is one single office, and one only, for which they are not allowed to run? That's a stretcher O'Bill . . . perhaps i was wrong, perhaps you're in the Karzak camp of political rhetoric . . .

I wrote incorrectly, do forgive me. The twelfth amendment reads, in part: But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Therefore, there are two offices, and two only, for which the foreign-born are ineligible. Hardly a case for contending that one discriminates against immigrants--but you carry on O'Bill, i wouldn't want to rain on your parade.

D'Art- Republican's hyper-partisanship came first on this one, hands down. I wasn't picking sides on that.

Set- Please, you know better than that. I'm not crying discrimination. I'm pointing out that the sides seem to be askew on this one... and apparently, the side you are on is making it difficult for you to just admit it.

Not at all, O'Bill. I've not expressed an opinion on whether or not foreign-born citizens should be eligible to the office of President, i've simply pointed out that they currently are not. The way you are phrasing this, it is as though those on the left were actively opposing a measure which innocently seeks to guarantee rights for immigrants. Nothing could be further from the truth. As i and others have pointed out, this was not an issue for the Right until the Governator came along. Tempest in a teapot, O'Bill . . .

This approach was used when the Democrats opposed an ultra-rightist judicial nominee last year. They were accused of being anti-Catholic.

A clever tactic, if you can get away with it...

Set, the two political sides are on opposite sides of where you would expect them to be if not for the Governator, YES? Therefore, both sides are exhibiting signs of hyper-partisanship over actual ideology. If this is true, than your Karzak comment was inaccurate as well as uncalled for.

And as a curious aside; what does frequency of application have to do with discrimination? What's your take on Augusta's membership policies?

No, this is a tempest in a teapot. The idea of a constitutional amendment has been casually broached, not tabled for discussion in the Congress. People on the right have advanced the notion of such an amendment specifically because of Ah-nold. People on the left have laughed at the idea. You are trying to contend that this is a serious ideological proposal about an inherent inequity in our constitution which discriminates against immigrants. Please, get a grip, once again, this is tempest in a teapot material.



I've already stated why i do not consider this any type of a significant ideological conflict--hence my contention that your reaction has an hysterical accusatory tone such as Karzak frequently employs.



The frequency of application matters as to the degree of "discrimination" which you allege. Two, and two offices only, are prohibited the foreign-born citizen, once in four years, among the literally tens of thousands of political offices to which they are eligible. This is why i continue to refer to this as tempest in a teapot.

Augusta is a country club which serves as a major public venue on at least one occasion each year. Were it an entirely private, subscription institution, at which public events were never held, a restricted membership criterion would likely stand tests against it, so long as it could not be alleged that the criterion were selectivley discriminatory. But as the venue for a widely known and watched public event, the issue takes on a public significance. It is certainly not equivalent to the constitutional prohibition on foreign-born citizens standing for President.

To answer the original question: It's a f*cking joke. Get over it.

And to answer the question of foreign-born presidents:

Why not? I know people who moved here from other countries, and they have more appreciation for what this country is all about than many of my native-born friends. A LOT more appreciation. Maybe because they had to work to get here, instead of just being plopped out in a local hospital. Plus, if we are going to be a global force, wouldn't it be nice to have more candidates with actual experience in the world outside the U.S. A little perspective? I think it could only be better.

At least some new voices would be heard.

What's the worst that could happen?

So, until an idea is tabled for discussion in congress, the opposite sides shouldn't be expected to voice opinions consistent with their supposed ideologies? Huh.

My hysterical accusatory tone? Gee, sorry I blew up. Why are you resorting to this type of distraction I wonder?

Boy, you must be in the mood to argue. Discrimination is discrimination and it matters not a wit how often it is employed. I don't believe for one fleeting moment that you believe otherwise. But then, I'm hysterical, what do I know.

I wish I could draw . . . .
Time: Near Future.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is President of the United States. He was elected on his platform: "Never underestimate the power of a man's balls." He is attending a human rights conference with other world leaders. He is sitting at a large conference table. The female prime minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, is sitting to Schwarzennegger's right. The male president of France, Jacques Chirac, is sitting to Schwarzennegger's left.

Schwarzennegger has his back slightly turned away from Prime Minister Zia as he turns his attention to President Chirac. He drapes his left arm around the back of President Chirac's chair.

Under the table, we can see Schwarzennegger's bulging groin. (Prior to his arrival at the conference table, he shoved three pairs of rolled up socks in his pants to emit an aura of testosterone and power. Because he represents the USA, he selected red, white, and blue socks.)

Under the table, we can also see Schwarzennegger's right hand is groping Prime Minister Zia's upper thigh as he addresses President Chirac:

"I will concede that villiage leaders may publicly whip rape victims and force these women to pay a fine of $25--what do you say, girlie boy, do you got the balls to compromise so we can move onto the more important issues? I mean, lighter prison sentences for spurned men convicted of throwing acid in women's faces is imporrrrrtant . . . ."

Re: I wish I could draw . . . .

If you consider this an ideological issue, you are of course welcome to do so. My contention is that it plays no part of anyone's ideology, because it has never been made an issue until the Governator came along, and the fact that no one has tabled the notion in Congress is evidence of how little it apparently really matters to those who have brought the idea up--so, i don't for a moment consider this an ideological issue. You're creating this out of whole cloth, and i think largely to have something to argue about.



No distraction, and i did not state that you have employed an hysterical accusatory tone, rather, i stated that your remarks partake of the hysterical, accusatory tone which is characteristic of much which Karzak posts in these fora. Follow along closely with me here, O'Bill, i'll try to explain it in simple terms. The use of the express "partakes of" means that something is similar to something else, but much reduced in its force or impact. So, basically, i am opining that you're picking up bad habits from those who are given to employing an hysterical, accusatory tone. I reach this conclusion because of your attempt to color this silly, silly discussion in terms of a profound ideological dispute. It's not, it's just a discussion of a silly idea some of the Governator's admirers put forth, and which it does not appear anyone has taken seriously. I did not state or even suggest that you had blown up. This sort of thing, a feeble attempt to put words in my mouth, also partakes of the hysterical accusatory style. As for distraction, how do you contend that distraction is involved in a direct discussion of the theme and your presentation thereof?



Again, you make a false attempt to impute to me an accusation that you are hysterical. I did not contend that at any time. Discrimination does not apply in this case, simply because all foreign-born citizens are ineligible for the office of President (and by extension from the XIIth amendment, therefore ineligible for the office fo Vice President). That part of the constitution does not identify any exceptions or special inclusions--only native citizens are eligible to the office. No one below the age of 35 years is eligible to the office. Do you contend that this is discrimination? Anyone having completed two full terms, or one term and a portion of a term the total of which exceeds six years is ineligible to the office. Do you contend that this constitutes discrimination?

In the first place, although you attempt to use the word discrinimation as if it were inherently an identifiable evil, in fact that is only usage. If i choose one brand of tobacco over another, i have exercised discrimination in my taste for tobacco. If i prefer cotton clothing to synthetics, i have exercised discrimination in my choice of fabrics. This is why the rather clumsy style you have attempted here partakes of hysterical accusation.

To review: there is no evidence in the discourse of the body politic that the qualifications to the office of President are the subject of a discussion of ideology, let alone evidence of a significant ideological divide. You have attempted to cast the issue in light of an ideological divide in order to warrant an accusation of hypocricy by those you identify as "leftist." This is classic strawman techinque. You and i have today discussed the topic more than all the public play the issue has gotten in months--it is simply not an issue either with the general public nor with political observers and commentators. To the extent that you attempt to brand the constitutional qualifications for office as active discrimination; to the extend that you attempt to cast an insignificant bit of political silliness in the light of ideologically significant dsipute; and, to the extent that you attempt to construct a case for your "leftist" strawman's hypocricy--your style partakes of the hysterically accusatory tone favored by some of the more extremely partisan and less succintly articulate members here, such as Karzak. Note that this is not a statement that you are hysterical, except, of course, in the sense of being hysterically funny for wanting your argument to be taken seriously.

Set, if we switched sides, right now, you'd spank me twice as bad as you are doing from your wrong side. I applaud your skill. However, all I said to get you started was

YOU jumped all the way to:


And then, before I had even responded, you jumped again to



To which I responded:



Which, of course, remains true. You called discrimination into this, not I. I merely commented on it as a "curious aside", because I found your "doesn't come up often so it's not discrimination" argument feeble... and still do. It still doesn't matter IF you discriminate against folks for one office or 1 million offices; discrimination is discrimination. And, I still haven't accused anyone of discriminating anyway, so that remains a "curious aside".

The fact remains that the liberal "left" are usually more interested in increasing immigrant's rights than the hated "right". So anyone, from either side, who continues to voice opinions that are contrary to their standard ideology, continues to display their hyper partisanship. And that, my friend, is all I said in the first place.

Well, for whatever its worth, I'm in favour of making foreign-born citizens eligible to the office of President ... or Prime Minister, in my country.

Who would be appropriate for that job nimh? Ayaan Hirsi Ali? :wink:

There was a time some thought Henry Kissinger was the smartest and most capable man on the planet and there were some undercurrents of finding some way to elect him to high office. Arnold inherited a royal mess in California, and from what I've been reading has been doing a fairly decent job of digging out. (It never ceases to amaze me how some think governors and/or presidents are equipped with magic wands they can wave and immediately make everything wrong right if only they wanted to.)

As far as the 'girlieman' jibe, what Kicky said. It was a joke and nothing more. (I get soooo sick of the political correctness crap that makes semantics more important than intent or substance.)

I'll go slowly, O'Bill . . .


Using the language upon which you are insisting, which is arguing against increased rights for immigrants, precisely who do you say has done this?

You wrote: "Is there a better explanation for why liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants, while staunch conservatives argue to increase them?"

Look, folks, it's two, two, two strawmen in one ! ! !


Can you identify for me the liberal democrats who are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants? Because if you can't, that makes it a strawman. Can you identify for me the staunch conservatives who argue to increase them? Because if you can't, that is a strawman as well.

Let's have some perspective here, O'Bill . . .


molehill < mountain

It matters little what pace you attempt to move the goal posts at Set. Suit yourself. :wink:

You, Setanta, not I, introduced this subject to the thread.

After YOU brought it up; Phoenix was first to voice her opinion that only folks born on our soil should be allowed to hold the top office... which makes sense because it is in keeping with her standard politics. Next to respond was none other than the Bi-PolarBear himself, who agreed with her despite being a proud, admitted liberal democrat. No Strawman here, Set. Unless you are now going to argue that only people in congress can argue ... and the opinions of those they represent mean nothing, which would be shameless.

Considering the idea has been discussed at length before YOU brought it up on this thread, I'm confident you could find dozens of examples of people taking sides opposite their normal ideology simply because of party loyalty..., which could, of course, be described as hyper-partisanship.

Technically, wasn't George Washington born on British soil? And look how good he was as a president! HA!

" . . . you attempt to move the goal posts . . . " That's nice, O'Bill; completely full of poop, but it's nice to see that you're beginning to master the rhetorical tricks necessary to achieve your apparently devoutly desired consumation of becoming a right-wing flame artist.



No, that is not in fact true. I wrote: "Where's all that enthusiasm for amending the constitution to allow the foreign-born citizen to stand for President? How much longer will you folks wait? Are you ready to sign on now?" It may not have been obvious to you--i cannot speak to how well developed a sense of humor or of irony you possess--but the intent of that remark was silly humor, nothing more and nothing less. And certainly nothing sinister was involved. You are the one who began to rant about ideological contradictions. I have not in fact at any time offered an opinion on the subject of whether or not it would be a good idea to ammend the constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to stand for the office of President.



I did not bring it up in the sense you are attempting to portray here. I offered no opinion on the rectitude of such a move, i simply indulged a penchant for silly humor. If you want to get nasty about this, have no doubt that i can hold my own against you. Let's examine your idiotic contentions in this case:

Arguing against increased rights for immigrants.: I have not done so. I have observed that i consider this making a molehill into a mountain, and i have observed that i do not consider this any great injustice. I have not argued for or against amending the constitution for this purpose. Phoenix has stated that she is opposed to the idea; for further discussion of your hare-brained thesis with regard to Phoenix's remarks, see below. This is what the Bear had to say: "right on, we don't need foreigners in office when we have real live American born and raised citizens willing to sell themselves, their counrty and the people they were elected to serve out for money......go home Ahnold gwb has that covered...... " A rather acidic bit of humor there, but i feel it safe to say that this was intended humorously. It may well be the case that the Bear is opposed to amending the constitution for this purpose. However, that statement, given its character, is hardly to be considered a serious statement on the issue by the Bear. Frankly, he seems to have just taken the wonderful opportunity afforded to take a cheap shot at the Shrub. So far, your weak argument rests solely upon a single serious observation by Phoenix.

Liberal democrats are now arguing to prevent increased rights for immigrants: Oh . . . really? So far, you have only Phoenix to refer to. Both Dart and Redheat make specific reference to Arnold, suggesting (and i would agree) that this only becomes an issue because of the fondness which some conservatives have for the Austrian Tyro--neither of them made a general statement about the subject; both of them specifically referred to the Governator. This leaves you offering Phoenix as the avatar for liberal democrats.

Your original text has the term "liberal democrats." As the second word is not capitalized it would be both reasonable and rhetorically fair to assume that you mean liberal democrat in the sense that most of the world understands it--a politically centrist believer in democracy who has liberal social values to the effect that a society must establish a baseline for the welfare of the individual. That might just describe Phoenix. However, i suspect that had you been careful (and if you want to bullyrag me in such a discussion, you're going to need to be a good deal more careful than you have been so far), you would have written liberal Democrat, i.e., a member of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. That might describe Phoenix--in a pig's eye. Perhaps she will claim that it describes her; i would frankly be surprised given the tenor of her posts here. Even were one to accept for the sake of argument that Phoenix is a liberal Democrat, you used the term in the plural. Taking the remark of a single individual and extrapolating them to an entire class of people is rhetorical skullduggery for which there is a specific term--creating a strawman.

Staunch conservatives argue to increase them (i.e., increased rights for immigrants): This is really shoddy work on your part, O'Bill. You haven't answered the question in my last post regarding to whom you refer in stating that staunch conservatives argue to increase rights for immigrants. Therefore, we have another painfully obvious strawman.

The decision to change a law is a hell of a lot bigger than Arnold... no?: Thank you for appending the "no" to that phrase, it saves me the trouble. Both Dart and Redheat pointed out that this is about Arnold, and about Arnold only. You have provided no evidence to support this specious contention, which i deny.



This is the passage in which you contend that the alleged opposition of granting rights to immigrants is contrary to "their standard ideology." So far, you have failed to provide any more than the single example of Phoenix offering seriously her opinion that the foreign-born should not be allowed to stand for President. I do not accept a silly contention that the Bear's Bush-whacking constitutes a serious statement of his feelings on this subject. Your comment to the effect that: " . . . liberal 'left' are usually more interested in increasing immigrant's rights than the hated 'right'."--is very revelatory. (By the way, quotation marks should be placed at the outside of a full stop such as a period or semicolon.) How breathtakingly refreshing to see a self-avowed conservative acknowledge an ideological opposition to increasing rights for immigrants.

This last quoted statement of yours is the type of language which lead me to introduce the term "hysterical accusatory" tone. You have raised the level of stridency by use of the term "hyper-partisan," by the use of the phrase "hated right," by creating the ridiculous strawman of the single expressed opinion of Phoenix as a type for liberal democratic ideology. You contend that it is a fact that the "liberal left" (how hilarious, to the rest of the world there appears to be no left in the United States, which is a justifiable position for them to take) are usually more interested in increasing immigrant's rights--but you have provided no evidence for your "fact." I wouldn't argue against such a contention, however--but i will point out that you once again employ shabby rhetorical technique to contend that something is a fact without demonstrating as much.



Your confidence is misplaced. I'm not your errand boy to trot out to find for you the evidence you require to support a specious position. If you think you can find dozens of examples of people taking sides opposites to their "normal ideology" (how you intend to establish such a case as that is beyond human comprehension) simply because of party loyalty, you are free to help yourself. You have made that contention, not i.

In closing, you have written: "And that, my friend, is all I said in the first place." My friends do not bullyrag me on insignificant subjects for which they must raise the level of discourse to hysterical accusation in order to sustain the point in question. Any who would do so would not remain my friends. Therefore, i ask you to have the courtesy not to again address me as your friend.