Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

Then deal with it.

I'd say you're the one having problems dealing with it. I'm simply stating my opinion about the discrimination within your system.

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Let me try to help you understand. If the requirement was that the potus must be born in the U.S. or a European country, that would be discrimination. If we said that the potus must be born in the U.S. or anywhere other than an Arab nation, that would be discrimination. As it stands, it's not discrimination - as no specific country is singled out and excluded.

It is a prerequisite that any serving POTUS must be a natural born American citizen.

But don't take this stupid Canadian's word for it, I don't know shit....

[Guest American Woman]

It is a prerequisite that any serving POTUS must be a natural born American citizen.

But don't take this stupid Canadian's word for it, I don't know shit....

Ummm. Yeah, it is. Have I said otherwise?

[GostHacked]

Ummm. Yeah, it is. Have I said otherwise?

That's good, because you are clearly contradicting yourself when you say that it's not discrimination.

Buh BYE, have a nice day, I am tired of explaining myself, people just don't understand. Screw off you are not American..... /sarcasm.

[Guest American Woman]

That's good, because you are clearly contradicting yourself when you say that it's not discrimination.

*Sigh* Nooo, I'm not contradicting myself. The position requires the POTUS to be born in the U.S. for the reasons I already stated.

Buh BYE, have a nice day, I am tired of explaining myself, people just don't understand. Screw off you are not American..... /sarcasm.

Having a little breakdown, are you?

[GostHacked]

*Sigh* Nooo, I'm not contradicting myself. The position requires the POTUS to be born in the U.S. for the reasons I already stated.

Which is in fact discriminatory by design. And really, for the position of POTUS, I agree that no one else but a natural born american citizen should hold that position. Just don't say it's not discrimination.

Having a little breakdown, are you?

I try little breakdowns here and there, andI still need to get the hang of bridges as well. But in the end it's just house with four on the floor.

[Guest American Woman]

Which is in fact discriminatory by design. And really, for the position of POTUS, I agree that no one else but a natural born american citizen should hold that position. Just don't say it's not discrimination.

I will say it's not discrimination because it's not. It's no more discrimination than any other reasonable job requirement is discrimination.

As for the rest of your post....

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[Smallc]

I will say it's not discrimination because it's not. It's no more discrimination than any other reasonable job requirement is discrimination.

But what makes it reasonable? How is it reasonable to have two classes of Americans, arbitrarily?

[GostHacked]

I will say it's not discrimination because it's not. It's no more discrimination than any other reasonable job requirement is discrimination.

Just because YOU say it's not discrimination does not mean it is not. Wait, hey that is exactly what you pull all the damn time against others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on his or her membership - or perceived membership - in a certain group or category. It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[1]

As for the rest of your post....

Um, they are musical references.

[Guest American Woman]

But what makes it reasonable? How is it reasonable to have two classes of Americans, arbitrarily?

I've already explained why, considering the presidential duties, it's not unreasonable and thus not "arbitrarily." If you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it the second time, so I won't be repeating myself.

[Guest American Woman]

Just because YOU say it's not discrimination does not mean it is not. Wait, hey that is exactly what you pull all the damn time against others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

....leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.

Nice definition. Discrimination is exclusion based on logical decision making? Next time I'm not hired for a surgical position based on the logical decision that I don't have a medical degree, I'm going to sue for discrimination. They can't exclude me because of that, no matter how logical the decision was.

Fortunately, it goes on to say for "arbitrary reason," and once again, the reason isn't arbitrary.

Um, they are musical references.

Um, yeah, I realize that.....

[Smallc]

Well then, I guess we'll just call the line of succession requirements reasonable. Why? Because I say so. It's not discriminatory at all...because I say so.

[Guest American Woman]

Well then, I guess we'll just call the line of succession requirements reasonable. Why? Because I say so. It's not discriminatory at all...because I say so.

Ummm, yeah, sure. Simply ignore the fact that I did explain why and post this nonsense instead. Really, if this is the best you can come up with, why bother?

[Wilber]

Ummm, yeah, sure. Simply ignore the fact that I did explain why and post this nonsense instead. Really, if this is the best you can come up with, why bother?

It's exactly what you have come up with so take your own advice.

[Guest American Woman]

It's exactly what you have come up with so take your own advice.

Is there something wrong with you? Seriously?? I EXPLAINED WHY - AND "BECAUSE I SAID SO" WAS NO PART OF THE EXPLANATION.

[Wilber]

Guess not.

[Bonam]

I've already explained why, considering the presidential duties, it's not unreasonable and thus not "arbitrarily." If you didn't get it the first time, you won't get it the second time, so I won't be repeating myself.

The population gets to vote a president in basically based on their personality, whatever any voter may judge significant: their ideals, their religion, their proposed policies, their record, etc. Their "loyalty" to the nation is something that can and should be determined by the voters, just like every other aspect of their fitness for the position. In any case, many foreign-born Americans may be even more loyal to the US than their US-born counterparts, realizing just how much better the US is than the places they came from, and the amazing opportunities they have had in the US. Leave it up to the people to judge a candidate's loyalty, rather than prejudging it based on national origin.

If we're gonna talk about discrimination, it should be noted that the American discrimination noted above is far more significant, since it actually prevents a person thus discriminated against from holding the most powerful office in the land: real power, rather than the largely symbolic/ceremonial position of king/queen, which exercise real powers far less than many other elected and appointed officials.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

The population gets to vote a president in basically based on their personality, whatever any voter may judge significant: their ideals, their religion, their proposed policies, their record, etc. Their "loyalty" to the nation is something that can and should be determined by the voters, just like every other aspect of their fitness for the position. In any case, many foreign-born Americans may be even more loyal to the US than their US-born counterparts, realizing just how much better the US is than the places they came from, and the amazing opportunities they have had in the US. Leave it up to the people to judge a candidate's loyalty, rather than prejudging it based on national origin.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. As I said, I'm not saying I'm in complete agreement with the the requirement, but at the same time, I don't see it as unreasonable.

Many foreign-born Americans may be even more loyal, but many also may not be and some may have ulterior motives. At any rate, the requirement is also to prevent a foreign influence in the U.S., which is not unreasonable. That you disagree with it does not make it arbitrary or irrational; it's not arbitrary or without reason. Not allowing a Catholic (and only a Catholic insofar as religion is concerned) to be head of state of a secular nation is, OTOH, arbitrary and without reason; it is discrimination.

Edited September 8, 2012 by American Woman

[Bonam]

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. As I said, I'm not saying I'm in complete agreement with the the requirement, but at the same time, I don't see it as unreasonable.

You don't see it as unreasonable, just as apparently many Canadians don't see the restrictions on the monarchy as unreasonable. Everyone has an opinion.

Many foreign-born Americans may be even more loyal, but many also may not be and some may have ulterior motives. At any rate, the requirement is also to prevent a foreign influence in the U.S., which is not unreasonable. That you disagree with it does not make it arbitrary or irrational; it's not arbitrary or without reason. Not allowing a Catholic (and only a Catholic insofar as religion is concerned) to be head of state of a secular nation is, OTOH, arbitrary and without reason; it is discrimination.

Except its not without reason. That reason was clearly stated by guyser. Whether or not you agree with that reason, or choose to find it not up to your high standards of acceptable reasons for discrimination is beside the point. A reason exists therefore its not arbitrary.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Good grief. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, because the issue is discrimination. Whether or not it's a valid qualification is a matter of opinion, as opposed to discrimination - which is unarguably not valid.

For God's sake. It's not an open position that people can apply for. Quit being obtuse.

[cybercoma]

Let me try to help you understand. If the requirement was that the potus must be born in the U.S. or a European country, that would be discrimination. If we said that the potus must be born in the U.S. or anywhere other than an Arab nation, that would be discrimination. As it stands, it's not discrimination - as no specific country is singled out and excluded.

So what's the difference between saying "The POTUS must be born in the US" and "The monarch of Canada must be born in a particular family"?

[cybercoma]

Just because you can't wrap your head around it doesn't mean it's BS.

There you go again, calling people stupid because you're losing an argument.

If you were half as smart as you were smug, you would make Sheldon Cooper feel like an idiot.

[Guest American Woman]

You don't see it as unreasonable, just as apparently many Canadians don't see the restrictions on the monarchy as unreasonable. Everyone has an opinion.

Do you know what unreasonable means? It means, basically, without reason. I explained the reason for the restrictions on the POTUS requirements. How about you explain the reasons why a Catholic, and only a Catholic, is excluded from being Canada's head of state? Not Great Britain's, but Canada's? Explain the reason why a Catholic can't represent a secular nation; a nation, that ironically, has more Catholics than any other religion. And then explain why someone other than the offspring of the royal family could not be head of state - and how that's not discrimination.

Except its not without reason. That reason was clearly stated by guyser.

Whether or not you agree with that reason, or choose to find it not up to your high standards of acceptable reasons for discrimination is beside the point.

Oh yes, my high standards. Only people with "my high standards" are critical of discrimination regarding one religion.

Guyser explained why the position of head of state where the duty involves being head of the Church of England would exclude Catholics; Which, as I already said, I was already aware of.

A reason exists therefore its not arbitrary.

I'm still waiting for the reason a Catholic can't be the head of state of Canada, a secular nation; or anyone outside of the royal family. How could that possibly put Canada at risk?

[Wilber]

name='American Woman' date='07 September 2012 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1347084544' post='827536']

Do you know what unreasonable means? It means, basically, without reason. I explained the reason for the restrictions on the POTUS requirements. How about you explain the reasons why a Catholic, and only a Catholic, is excluded from being Canada's head of state? Not Great Britain's, but Canada's? Explain the reason why a Catholic can't represent a secular nation; a nation, that ironically, has more Catholics than any other religion. And then explain why someone other than the offspring of the royal family could not be head of state - and how that's not discrimination.

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.

The reasons for a non Catholic being monarch have been explained to you many times and should be obvious. 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.

All this may seem quaint and discriminatory to you but we don't care. It is our system so stuff it.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Wilber

[eyeball]

the Monarch cannot be of sixteen different religions at once.

Why not exactly? Shouldn't a defender of all faiths have at least a little stake in each of them?

Because Canada is a secular nation, the Monarch's religion is not an issue.

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.