g_bambino Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Good grief. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, because the issue is discrimination. Uh huh. So, being born in the US is a necessary "qualification" for being president, thereby making the rule not discriminatory against US citizens not born in the US, but you can't explain why being born in the US is a necessary "qualification" for being president. That failure speaks more clearly than all the verbiage you toss out in lieu. [ed.: +] Edited September 8, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 So it's not discrimination against people not born in the US in general? I'm not sure how you can actually say that with a straight face. She gets to change the definition of words. It's AW rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 If you were half as smart as you were smug, you would make Sheldon Cooper feel like an idiot. Well played! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 I suspect the official uproar throughout the Realms not to mention the rules would also preclude any atheist from ever ascending the throne... There's no rule barring athiests. Though, it would be odd to have an athiest heading a state church. Then again, having a state church seems a bit odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Why not exactly? Shouldn't a defender of all faiths have at least a little stake in each of them? Not sure how you would do that constitutionally, aside from non interference in the practice of other religions which is already the case. Any suggestions. Really? I suspect the official uproar throughout the Realms not to mention the rules would also preclude any atheist from ever ascending the throne never mind any of the higher planes of existence associated with it. For all I know the Queen is an atheist but as head of the Church of England she is required to be officially Anglican. At this time anyway, nothing is cast in stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Uh huh. So, being born in the US is a necessary "qualification" for being president, thereby making the rule not discriminatory against US citizens not born in the US, but you can't explain why being born in the US is a necessary "qualification" for being president. That failure speaks more clearly than all the verbiage you toss out in lieu. [ed.: +] Good. God. I DID EXPLAIN IT. But do keep ignoring that fact and responding as if I hadn't. Seems it's all some of you are capable of - and all you have to come back with. It's quite pathetic sad, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 I DID EXPLAIN IT. Show me where, please. Because it certainly wasn't in response to my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) When are you going to understand that no matter how many times you try and make the case for the position of POTUS not being discriminatory, no one is buying it. You don't have to "buy" it, and trust me, I realize that some of you will never "buy" (ie: recognize) anything outside of your comfort zone. I've explained why it's not "discrimination," but that that fact in itself doesn't mean that it's something everyone has to agree with, but you cannot buy wrap your head around the fact that it's not discrimination, by definition. It's not, without reason, excluding one specific group - ie: Arabs, or Canadians ..... or Catholics. That you can't have a Catholic as your "defender of all faiths," and that you accept it, as you claim what a secular state you are, and criticize the U.S. regarding religion, looks ludicrous from this side of the border. The reasons for a non Catholic being monarch have been explained to you many times and should be obvious. AGAIN, if a Catholic somehow could hypothetically be in a position that would affect loyalty to CANADA, it would be understandable. As an Anglican nation, I understand Great Britain's stand regarding the religion exclusion. But as a SECULAR nation, it makes no sense. Just as in a modern, democratic nation, and that includes Great Britain, it makes no sense to give the title based on BIRTH. That is total discrimination. Why you feel someone is worthy of the title based on nothing but the circumstances of their birth and their religion is hard to figure. Because we share a monarch with fifteen other nations, all of which do not have the same religious requirements, the Monarch cannot be of sixteen different religions at once. Because Canada is a secular nation, the Monarch's religion is not an issue. Yes, it IS an issue for Canada, because based on your head of state's requirements, evidently loyalty to Great Britain and the Church of England comes first; a Catholic can never be your head of state - in spite of your large Catholic population -or anyone born outside of the royal family. Even as you pride yourself on being a secular nation. If I were a Canadian Catholic, I would feel oh-so-accepting of the fact that a Catholic could never be "the defender of [my] faith." All this may seem quaint and discriminatory to you but we don't care. Quaint?? Do you have an innate ability to respond to what I actually say and beieve? Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not you "care;" that you don't just drives my point home. It is our system so stuff it. It's my opinion, so YOU stuff it. Like it or not, people - even Americans - are sometimes critical of your country. Good God, some Canadians are not able to deal with any view outside their own, especially if it's at all Critical of anything Canadian. It's mind boggling, really, as you spend a good deal of time criticizing the U.S. But what do I get from you 'oh-so-tolerant' people? "Stuff it." "No one on this forum likes you." "Die." "Everyone on this forum thinks you are ignorant." "You're so arrogant." "You think everyone should be like the U.S." Ironically, this from people who think I have no right to an opinion about anything Canadian. And as y'all go on and on about ME and I simply respond: "She makes every thread about her." So I say put on that maple leaf backpack and go out in the world and project the "we are tolerant Canadians, love us!" mindset - as you are anything but. Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 "Stuff it." Yes, stuff it, you really have become quite a boor on this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Yes, stuff it, you really have become quite a boor on this topic. Everyone who doesn't agree with you and/or has criticism of Canada isn't going to "stuff it," so you best get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Everyone who doesn't agree with you and/or has criticism of Canada isn't going to "stuff it," so you best get used to it. Well if not knuckling under to Americans who don't know when to quit and insist on telling me how I should or should not be governed makes me intolerant in you books, then that's just too bad. So stuff it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Well if not knuckling under to Americans who don't know when to quit and insist on telling me how I should or should not be governed makes me intolerant in you books, then that's just too bad. So stuff it. Ohhhh, wow..... you da man for trying to stop me from voicing my opinion about the monarchy/your head of state. Because of course stating my opinion is "insisting on telling [you] how you should or should not be governed." Whatever you do, don't "knuckle down to" whatever it is that's in your head. It's your "stuff it" attitude that is intolerant. Your complete inability to deal with criticism and a view counter to your own. FYI, there is no time "to quit" stating my opinion, so you can keep telling me to "stuff it" until the next Blue Moon and I will still be speaking my mind. That's the beauty of a democracy and free speech - a thin-skinned poster on a political forum can't shut me up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Show me where, please. Because it certainly wasn't in response to my question. I didn't see her explanation anywhere either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 It's not, without reason, excluding one specific group - ie: Arabs, or Canadians ..... or Catholics.Uh... yes it is. It's not like you ONLY need to be a US citizen to be president. You need to be a US citizen AND you need to be born in the US. It's creating two classes of citizens and discriminates against those citizens who swore their oaths of citizenship and renounced all others although they were not born in the US. Does anyone have any control whatsoever over where they were born? No. So it's discrimination against something someone is born into.Meanwhile, anyone can renounce their religion if they are Roman Catholic and were to become part of the Royal Family. So the POTUS qualification is EVEN MORE discriminatory than the Canadian monarchy because you cannot renounce where you were born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I DID EXPLAIN IT. Show me where, please. Because it certainly wasn't in response to my question. Still waiting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) It's not like you ONLY need to be a US citizen to be president. You need to be a US citizen AND you need to be born in the US. It's creating two classes of citizens and discriminates against those citizens who swore their oaths of citizenship and renounced all others although they were not born in the US. Does anyone have any control whatsoever over where they were born? No. So it's discrimination against something someone is born into. Precisely. Using AW logic: if being born in the US is a qualification for being president, because it is, and as such is not discriminatory, then being not a Catholic is a qualification for being king or queen, because it is, and is thus not discriminatory. Conversation over! [ed.: c/e] Edited September 9, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Precisely. Using AW logic: if being born in the US is a qualification for being president, because it is, and as such is not discriminatory, then being not a Catholic is a qualification for being king or queen, because it is, and is thus not discriminatory. Conversation over! [ed.: c/e] Try reading through the thread for what I actually did say. It's not my duty to take the time to go through the thread and find what you are asking for nor is it my duty to waste my time repeating what I have already said over and over. If you choose not to do that, if you choose not to go back and read all of my posts kindly refrain from making up "AW logic" based on nothing but your ignorance :angry: - and I will show you the same courtesy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 It's not my duty to take the time to go through the thread and find what you are asking for... It is your duty to answer my question. You did not do so in direct response to it. If you did answer it in some round-about way in a response to someone else, it isn't my job to go through and try to guess which it might be. If you want to be understood, make yourself clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 It is your duty to answer my question. You did not do so in direct response to it. It is NOT "my duty" to answer your posts directly. I have already addressed your question(s) several times; giving very clear explanations, and I've made it clear to you that I have already done so. If you did answer it in some round-about way in a response to someone else, it isn't my job to go through and try to guess which it might be. If you want to be understood, make yourself clear. I've already made myself clear and I won't be repeating myself again. So here's a tip: If you cannot understand what I have clearly said, if you choose not to go back through the thread and find said posts (I know I don't care to waste my time doing it), then REFRAIN from making up "AW logic" and ADDRESS WHAT I HAVE SAID DIRECTLY rather than blathering on about me with another poster about something that's in your head(s). Do you think you can manage that?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I have already addressed your question(s) several times; giving very clear explanations, and I've made it clear to you that I have already done so. Yet, you can't point out where, leaving it to me to try and guess where. Why couch your response to me in amongst your responses to others? It suggests you either want to hide the answer or haven't given one at all. Either show me where you answered my question or repeat the answer for me now. Otherwise, you've no proof you answered it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) Yet, you can't point out where, leaving it to me to try and guess where. If you have so much as an ounce of intelligence, you won't have to guess which posts I've addressed it in. As for "where," I have no idea where they are in this thread, and I have no desire to pick through it to find them. Why would I want to waste my time that way? Why couch your response to me in amongst your responses to others? It suggests you either want to hide the answer or haven't given one at all. What is "suggests" to you is your problem, as I've explained my reasons for not repeating myself or searching through the thread for my previous posts ad naeseum, and won't be wasting any more time repeating them again either. Either show me where you answered my question or repeat the answer for me now. You can take your demands and shove them where the sun don't shine. Otherwise, you've no proof you answered it at all. Ummm. Yeah, I do. The proof is immortalized within this thread. Edited September 9, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 If you have so much as an ounce of intelligence, you won't have to guess which posts I've addressed it in. As for "where," I have no idea where they are in this thread, and I have no desire to pick through it to find them. Why would I want to waste my time that way? Why would you need to? It's not like you wrote a dissertation or some lengthy essay on it. Just restate your argument as to why being born in the US is necessary. You've spent 10x as long as that would have taken being condescending and difficult, showing that you have absolutely no interest in discussion or debate. Which invokes the questions, why bother posting in this thread or even these forums at all? Ummm. Yeah, I do. The proof is immortalized within this thread. There's definitely A truth immortalized in this thread. I'm certain it's not the truth you're thinking of though. More like a concrete testament to a grown woman acting like a 7 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I have no idea where they are in this thread... Repeating the answer for me was an option I suggested. Since you won't undertake the easy task of repeating it, nor will you show me where it supposedly is, there's nothing other than your own unproven assertions to say you actually gave it. So, for the purposes of the back and forth between you and I, specifically, my question to you remains unanswered. Your continued dodging indicates you can't actually explain how being born in the US is a necessary qualification for being president. Then there's this: If you have so much as an ounce of intelligence...You can take your demands and shove them where the sun don't shine. The sad signs of a sore loser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 The sad signs of a sore loser. Are you 12? Seems to me your sad response shows who "the sore loser" is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Are you 12? Seems to me your sad response shows who "the sore loser" is. Ironic. I'm sorry you've publicly embarrassed yourself by being unable to give me an explanation of your own statement. [ed.: sp] Edited September 10, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.