Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

See? I was spot on.

No, you were not "spot on," as I clearly spoke of reasonable and unreasonable qualifications regarding "discrimination," and if you chose to ignore that and go on some sort of 'word game' tangent knowing full well the context I was referring to, that makes you off in left field.

quote g_bambino:

For the rest of us, even a necessary qualification (like not being diabetic to be a bus driver) is still discrimination.

According to your mindset, when discussing discrimination against Blacks in the U.S. in the 50's, in particular Rosa Parks having to give up her seat on a bus, a relevant, intelligent response would be, "But Canada discriminated, too - and still discriminates! Diabetics can't drive buses!" - and if that's your idea of relevant, intelligent discussion, it should be obvious why I want no part of it.

[g_bambino]

No, you were not "spot on," as I clearly spoke of reasonable and unreasonable qualifications

Indeed I was and, as I said, it's up to you to explain how being born in the US is a necessary qualification for being president of the US, since its supposedly being a necessary qualification is what makes it, according to you, not discrimination.

[ed.: punct, +]

Edited September 11, 2012 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Indeed I was and, as I said, it's up to you to explain how being born in the US is a necessary qualification for being president of the US, since it's supposedly being a necessary qualification is what makes it not discrimination.

[ed.: punct]

And here we go again. I already explained why.

[g_bambino]

I already explained why.

Prove you did.

[cybercoma]

And here we go again. I already explained why.

Where? Because I can't find the post. You don't even have to go back through the thread to find it. Presumably you know what your own argument is. Why is being born in the US a "reasonable" qualification? What makes it unreasonable for someone born outside of the US, but is an American citizen, to be president?

[Guest American Woman]

Prove you did.

As I've said repeatedly now, the proof is in the thread.

Have yourself a great day. And do something about those discriminatory bus driver qualifications in Canada, will you? It's a disgrace the way your country discriminates - as you condone and defend it.

Edited September 11, 2012 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

Where? Because I can't find the post. You don't even have to go back through the thread to find it. Presumably you know what your own argument is. Why is being born in the US a "reasonable" qualification? What makes it unreasonable for someone born outside of the US, but is an American citizen, to be president?

She won't do either. She can't answer the question in a way that won't undermine her "discrimination/not-discrimination" argument. She's been cornered.

[Guest American Woman]

She won't do either. She can't answer the question in a way that won't undermine her "discrimination/not-discrimination" argument. She's been cornered.

[cybercoma]

As I've said repeatedly now, the proof is in the thread.

You're a liar.

Prove me wrong.

[Wilber]

Absolutely. I only asked her to explain how being born in the US is a necessary qualification for being president because she's deemed any qualification required to perform a job as non-discriminatory. As I said, I'm playing within (and with) her own rules. For the rest of us, even a necessary qualification (like not being diabetic to be a bus driver) is still discrimination.

Not being an American citizen it is not up to me to say whether it is necessary or not, I just think the assertion it isn't descriminatory is rediculous.

[Guest American Woman]

Not being an American citizen it is not up to me to say whether it is necessary or not, I just think the assertion it isn't descriminatory is rediculous.

And I think the assertion that it is discriminatory is ridiculous, and I've explained why.

[Wilber]

And I think the assertion that it is discriminatory is ridiculous, and I've explained why.

Sorry but your explanation is crap.

[Guest American Woman]

Sorry but your explanation is crap.

Sorry, but you're declaring it crap doesn't make it so. That is quite the argument you've come up with, though - "your explanation is crap." I can see you put a lot of thought into it.

[Wilber]

Sorry, but you're declaring it crap doesn't make it so. That is quite the argument you've come up with, though - "your explanation is crap." I can see you put a lot of thought into it.

Unless you are willing to maintain that a person is automaticaly incompetant to carry out the duties of president solely because of their place of birth, your explanation is crap. On secon thought, it would still be crap.

[Guest American Woman]

Unless you are willing to maintain that a person is automaticaly incompetant to carry out the duties of president solely because of their place of birth, your explanation is crap. On secon thought, it would still be crap.

Your once again thought provoking "crap" argument aside, based on b_bambino's argument, let me ask you this: do you maintain that a diabetic is automatically incompetent to drive a bus?

[Smallc]

How about this? Your argument is absolutely baseless. There is no reason for the requirement of being a natural born citizen. It doesn't actually add anything of value.

[Wilber]

Your once again thought provoking "crap" argument aside, based on b_bambino's argument, let me ask you this: do you maintain that a diabetic is automatically incompetent to drive a bus?

The possibility of a bus driver lapsing into a diabetic coma might be a problem, I don't know but as he has stated that it is discrimination so what is your point?

The difference here is that we can admit when we discriminate, you cannot admit the possibility.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Wilber

[cybercoma]

Your once again thought provoking "crap" argument aside, based on b_bambino's argument, let me ask you this: do you maintain that a diabetic is automatically incompetent to drive a bus?

How about this? Pick a metaphor that doesn't suck or don't use a metaphor at all and actually articulate your argument.

[Guest American Woman]

The possibility of a bus driver lapsing into a diabetic coma might be a problem, I don't know but as he has stated that it is discrimination so what is your point?

My point is, do you support it? Do you see it as discrimination in the same context that Rosa Parks had to sit at the back of the bus? It's all "discrimination" to you? So you would see Blacks having to sit at the back of the bus again, or excluding Muslims from riding the bus at all, or white males being excluded from being CEO's in Canada as no different from preventing a diabetic from driving a bus? - because it's all discrimination? Everything is discrimination? Is that your stand?

[g_bambino]

I already explained why.

Prove you did.

As I've said repeatedly now, the proof is in the thread.

You're a liar.

Prove me wrong.

*Crickets*....

[Wilber]

My point is, do you support it? Do you see it as discrimination in the same context that Rosa Parks had to sit at the back of the bus? It's all "discrimination" to you? So you would see Blacks having to sit at the back of the bus again, or excluding Muslims from riding the bus at all, or white males being excluded from being CEO's in Canada as no different from preventing a diabetic from driving a bus? - because it's all discrimination? Everything is discrimination? Is that your stand?

As a retired pilot I am well aware of medical restrictions. I had annual medicals up until age 40 and semi annual medicals after that. At any time something like diabeties could have ended my career. The screwed up lifestyle of international flying could be very tough for many diabetics I would think. Fortunately I was able to make it to retirement without finding out. Can't speak to bus drivers.

Do I think requiring someone who is the head of a church to conform to a particular religion is discriminatory? No. Do I think excluding someone soley on the basis of place of birth or colour is discrimination? Yes.

[g_bambino]

Do I think requiring someone who is the head of a church to conform to a particular religion is discriminatory? No.

I would say it is; only that it is a reasonable discrimination. People are excluded, but only because it would be entirely unreasonable to have the head of a church believe in a different religion. There is, however, no rational reason why a citizen born in a country is more capable of being a political leader of that country than a citizen born outside it. (Dual allegiances is a red herring, since citizenship can be renounced and citizens born in the US can obtain a second citizenship.)

[Guest American Woman]

I would say it is; only that it is a reasonable discrimination. People are excluded, but only because it would be entirely unreasonable to have the head of a church believe in a different religion.

If it's "reasonable," it's not considered "discrimination" in the context that people refer to discrimination, so let's drop that red herring, shall we?

At any rate, so you're a religious state now, are you? But here's the thing. The exclusion isn't for "different religions," it's only for CATHOLICS. Evidently the head of the church can believe in any other religion except Catholicism. That's so reasonable, eh? Especially for a secular state.

And the exclusion isn't only in regards to religion, it's excluded by birth. Hilarious that you think the country of birth has no bearing on capability - as your country requires the head of state be born into a specific family, and to be first born.

There is, however, no rational reason why a citizen born in a country is more capable of being a political leader of that country than a citizen born outside it.

It's not a matter of "capability, but loyalty; specifically mixed loyalties should a conflict arise. It's also to keep out foreign influence. So yes, it's rational that the head of state, the Commander in Chief, the POTUS not have mixed loyalties. As I already pointed out, sometimes a person can have mixed loyalties if born in one country and becomes a citizen of another, and the POTUS must always put the U.S. first and foremost. If you were to become an American citizen and the US. and Canada were to get into a conflict, would your loyalties lie first and only with the U.S.? Can we say no mixed loyalties would or wouldn't be true of everyone?

Canada won't even let foreigners interfere in their elections because of "foreign influence." You many not believe it's a necessary qualification, but as long as it's not "unreasonable," and it's not, it's not discrimination.

(Dual allegiances is a red herring, since citizenship can be renounced and citizens born in the US can obtain a second citizenship.)

There's still the matter of emotional alliance, regardless.

[Smallc]

:lol:

[g_bambino]

:lol:

Well said; and in true AW fashion, as well.