The Icon Bar: The Playpen: President Obama, then
| |
President Obama, then |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #108672, posted by monkeyson2 at 04:50, 5/11/2008 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
Woo!
Good speech from McCain - shame we didn't see more of that during the campaign.
Jeremy Vine's graphics were RUBBISH. His invisible touch screen didn't even work properly. |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108673, posted by filecore at 08:40, 5/11/2008, in reply to message #108672 |
Posts: 3868
|
Glad to see we have our priorities in order, then. Who gives a shit? Besides, Jeremy Vine is better on BBC Radio 2, grilling squirming civil servants over social faux pas. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #108677, posted by moss at 17:30, 5/11/2008, in reply to message #108673 |
Posts: 9348
|
Glad to see we have our priorities in order, then. Who gives a shit? Me. I don't especially have anything useful to say about Obama - it's fantastic news, but other people say it better than me - but I do have stuff to say about the presentation of the results, which is important. How an election is covered is always important. Just because Obama being elected is the big news, it doesn't mean that everything else is irrelevant, and shouldn't be discussed.
Anyway,  , agreed, about the BBC VR stuff - it was appalling. As much as anything else, they were mainly using it just to show the map and text - which you could do far better with a newswall, as a lot of the American networks were doing. The background for the VR stuff was far too busy and distracting, whereas most of the US newswalls were clear and easy to read.
Did you see the CNN coverage? They were using a touchscreen, but it worked brilliantly - it functioned as a massive iPhone, with gestures and everything. With a flick of the finger, the guy zoomed into any state, and - crucially - also knew what he was talking about at the same time. Best of all, you could switch the view to historical data on how places had voted, so you could see red areas in previous elections turn blue, which gave a pretty good indication of where the results were going... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108680, posted by filecore at 17:52, 5/11/2008, in reply to message #108677 |
Posts: 3868
|
How an election is covered is always important. That's not what I meant. I agree, how an election is covered is important. I meant bickering about the quality of the graphics, or the appearance of a live broadcast technical glitch, is slightly missing the point, and apart from being perhaps visually distracting (I didn't see it myself), does it really affect the way the election was covered? Yes the BBC really ought to be doing better, but still. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #108682, posted by monkeyson2 at 19:16, 5/11/2008, in reply to message #108680 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
That's not what I meant. I agree, how an election is covered is important. I meant bickering about the quality of the graphics, or the appearance of a live broadcast technical glitch, is slightly missing the point, and apart from being perhaps visually distracting (I didn't see it myself), does it really affect the way the election was covered? Yes the BBC really ought to be doing better, but still. When you're watching something for 6 hours you want it to be interesting and entertaining - the bits with Jeremy Vine were bad enough to make me switch channels.
As for the technical glitches and other mistakes, that's what live TV is all about - there's nothing better than when something unexpected happens, but it often gets edited out of the following day's coverage. Moments like the loudspoken American studio guest saying that Krishnan Guru-Murthy should be sacked, the Gore Vidal interview, and interrupting someone to cut to a telephone call from George Bush - with no sound or video, just a still image of Bush holding the phone - were priceless. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108683, posted by filecore at 20:28, 5/11/2008, in reply to message #108682 |
Posts: 3868
|
When you're watching something for 6 hours you want it to be interesting and entertaining Sorry, but when you're watching something for six hours, you're a delusional obsessive. Unless it's back-to-back screenings of the Star Wars movies, in which case you're an optimistic delusional obsessive. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108688, posted by andrew at 00:21, 6/11/2008, in reply to message #108683 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
I think McCain was incredible. Reminds me of the Howard-Blair election of 2005 in several ways. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Adrian Lees |
Message #108703, posted by adrianl at 04:06, 8/11/2008, in reply to message #108683 |
Member
Posts: 1637
|
Sorry, but when you're watching something for six hours, you're a delusional obsessive. Unless it's back-to-back screenings of the Star Wars movies, in which case you're an optimistic delusional obsessive. Thanks for that, it made me laugh. Not many things do. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris |
Message #108718, posted by Chris at 19:21, 10/11/2008, in reply to message #108672 |
Member
Posts: 283
|
Woo!
Good speech from McCain - shame we didn't see more of that during the campaign.
Jeremy Vine's graphics were RUBBISH. His invisible touch screen didn't even work properly. Yep, to all. 
Nice to be reminded why, for all its problems, America is the leader of the free world and that that's a good thing. A genuine contest between two credible candidates (I'm leaving Palin aside, here), a gracious and impressive runner-up in McCain, and an inspirational winner in Obama. Democracy as it should be. Let's hope the new President can put right some of the damage caused by the hapless Dubya. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108778, posted by andrew at 01:09, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108718 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Obama is British:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html?OBAMA+ADMITS+HE+WAS+BRITISH+CITIZEN+AT+BIRTH+-+AS+SUCH+OBAMA+IS+NOT+A+NATURAL+BORN+CITIZEN+OF+US |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108780, posted by Stoppers at 10:58, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108778 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
Obama is British:
http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/article/29871.html?OBAMA+ADMITS+HE+WAS+BRITISH+CITIZEN+AT+BIRTH+-+AS+SUCH+OBAMA+IS+NOT+A+NATURAL+BORN+CITIZEN+OF+US Yes, we know you'd rather have someone in the White House even if they cause the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of living people as long as they say they oppose abortion (even if their
party did nothing to make it illegal in over a decade of control of Congress).
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
For completeness, they also answer the following question:
How can Panamanian-born McCain be elected president?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_can_panamanian-born_mccain_be_elected_president.html
Sorry for feeding the troll, folks.
Andrew, if you want to swap more links, or abuse, my e-mail address is my proper name, with a dot between the two parts, at gmx.de. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108781, posted by andrew at 12:38, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108780 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Erm, I don't think I want to "swap" anything with you in private, thanks. I was posting a link that I noticed elsewhere. And please keep the assumptions to yourself - how dare you say I want "hundreds of thousands" of people dead.
The link you posted says McCain *was* a "natural born citizen" whereas according to the other link Obama wasn't. Fact check!
[Edited by andrew at 12:39, 16/11/2008] |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108782, posted by Stoppers at 14:12, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108781 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
And please keep the assumptions to yourself - how dare you say I want "hundreds of thousands" of people dead. Well, I didn't quite say that, either.
I seem to remember taking issue over a thread about four years ago where you said that you were pleased that Bush had been re-elected because of his moral superiority over his opponent. However, I can't find it so I apologise.
The link you posted says McCain *was* a "natural born citizen" whereas according to the other link Obama wasn't. Fact check!
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
"The State of Hawaii [...] is a state in the United States, [...] admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959[...]. Its capital is Honolulu on the island of Oahu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
"[...] it is undisputed that people born in the US are qualified to hold the office of President."
As to McCain, the link says:
"McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country's borders,"
There's no point in saying that for Obama because he was "born within this country's borders". ("this country" being the USA, of course.) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108784, posted by filecore at 16:03, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108781 |
Posts: 3868
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108786, posted by andrew at 21:20, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108782 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
And please keep the assumptions to yourself - how dare you say I want "hundreds of thousands" of people dead. Well, I didn't quite say that, either.
I seem to remember taking issue over a thread about four years ago where you said that you were pleased that Bush had been re-elected because of his moral superiority over his opponent. However, I can't find it so I apologise.
Well that wouldn't be the same as wanting somebody who'd cause hundreds of thousands to die if I did, which I don't recall ever saying. But apology accepted.
The link you posted says McCain *was* a "natural born citizen" whereas according to the other link Obama wasn't. Fact check!
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii?s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
"The State of Hawaii [...] is a state in the United States, [...] admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959[...]. Its capital is Honolulu on the island of Oahu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
"[...] it is undisputed that people born in the US are qualified to hold the office of President."
As to McCain, the link says:
"McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country's borders,"
There's no point in saying that for Obama because he was "born within this country's borders". ("this country" being the USA, of course.)
The argument is that the President must not have had any other jurisdiction over him at birth and that supposedly Obama did as he was born into a colony of the British Empire. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108787, posted by Stoppers at 23:02, 16/11/2008, in reply to message #108786 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
And please keep the assumptions to yourself - how dare you say I want "hundreds of thousands" of people dead. Well, I didn't quite say that, either.
I seem to remember taking issue over a thread about four years ago where you said that you were pleased that Bush had been re-elected because of his moral superiority over his opponent. However, I can't find it so I apologise.
Well that wouldn't be the same as wanting somebody who'd cause hundreds of thousands to die if I did, which I don't recall ever saying. But apology accepted.
"Well, I didn't quite say that, either."
Bush had already started a war, which has killed hundreds of thousands. I can't think of much anyone could do to be morally inferior to that, although there have been a couple of examples.
The link you posted says McCain *was* a "natural born citizen" whereas according to the other link Obama wasn't. Fact check!
"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii?s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii
"The State of Hawaii [...] is a state in the United States, [...] admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959[...]. Its capital is Honolulu on the island of Oahu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen
"[...] it is undisputed that people born in the US are qualified to hold the office of President."
As to McCain, the link says:
"McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country's borders,"
There's no point in saying that for Obama because he was "born within this country's borders". ("this country" being the USA, of course.)
The argument is that the President must not have had any other jurisdiction over him at birth and that supposedly Obama did as he was born into a colony of the British Empire.
"The director of Hawaii's Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."
"The State of Hawaii['s ...] capital is Honolulu"
"The State of Hawaii [was] admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959"
Obama was born on 4th Aug 1961.
He was not born into a colony of the British Empire.
It's not that difficult. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108791, posted by andrew at 19:52, 17/11/2008, in reply to message #108787 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
He was apparently born to a British subject and, not an American, father, making him British at least according to the article. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108792, posted by filecore at 20:31, 17/11/2008, in reply to message #108784 |
Posts: 3868
|
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp *cough* |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108793, posted by Stoppers at 08:25, 18/11/2008, in reply to message #108791 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
He was apparently born to a British subject and, not an American, father, making him British at least according to the article. But it doesn't mean he's just British, does it?
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
"Throughout this country's history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship."
He may also have been British, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Both you and the author of the article appear to be incapable of grasping this simple fact and are therefore not worth taking seriously. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108797, posted by andrew at 21:15, 18/11/2008, in reply to message #108793 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Yes "citizenship" but the question is eligibility for Presidency. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108799, posted by Stoppers at 06:38, 19/11/2008, in reply to message #108797 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
Yes "citizenship" but the question is eligibility for Presidency. So, you think he was unnaturally born? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108806, posted by andrew at 20:41, 19/11/2008, in reply to message #108799 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
No Simon, he's not the antichrist. I'm just saying it's interesting that he's possibly a British citizen and not eligible for Presidency. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108809, posted by Stoppers at 21:29, 19/11/2008, in reply to message #108806 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
No Simon, he's not the antichrist. I'm just saying it's interesting that he's possibly a British citizen and not eligible for Presidency. You're missing the words "also" and "therefore", in that second sentence. If he were just British, then he would not be eligible for the Presidency, but he's not. Dual nationality gives extra rights; it doesn't take any away.
Show me something that says that a natural born (US) citizen may not have another nationality, or that the US president may not have had dual nationality at any time in their life. Then you might have some justification for your position. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108817, posted by andrew at 20:12, 20/11/2008, in reply to message #108809 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
It's not /my/ position, just an article of interest. The article describes that the authors of the constitution were British as well and hence had dual nationality but wrote in a "grandfather clause" so that they could be President in the early years. They didn't want "split loyalties" in future leaders according to the article, especially to Britain. Time will tell whether it's a correct reading of the constitution or not. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108819, posted by Stoppers at 09:08, 21/11/2008, in reply to message #108817 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
It's not /my/ position, just an article of interest. But it is one that you feel has sufficient merit to disseminate and defend.
The article describes that the authors of the constitution were British as well and hence had dual nationality but wrote in a "grandfather clause" so that they could be President in the early years. They didn't want "split loyalties" in future leaders according to the article, especially to Britain. Time will tell whether it's a correct reading of the constitution or not. It's not a correct reading of the English language, let alone the US Constitution.
The title of the document was this (shouting in original):
OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS BRITISH CITIZEN AT BIRTH - AS SUCH OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF US.
I have shown that this is wrong.
As to the "split loyalty" question; as far as I can see, there is no evidence that the framers of the US constitution didn't want "split loyalties" in future leaders (and if they had, I expect they would have written it down). The evidence just shows that they didn't want a president who was too young to eat solid food.
So, do you think you could agree that the article has no merit, as was pretty clear from the start? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108830, posted by andrew at 17:18, 21/11/2008, in reply to message #108819 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
It's not /my/ position, just an article of interest. But it is one that you feel has sufficient merit to disseminate and defend.
It's not my position that he isn't eligible for being President. The article I'd say certainly has merit for this thread.
The article describes that the authors of the constitution were British as well and hence had dual nationality but wrote in a "grandfather clause" so that they could be President in the early years. They didn't want "split loyalties" in future leaders according to the article, especially to Britain. Time will tell whether it's a correct reading of the constitution or not. It's not a correct reading of the English language, let alone the US Constitution.
Well that's what you say but time will tell IMO.
The title of the document was this (shouting in original):
OBAMA ADMITS HE WAS BRITISH CITIZEN AT BIRTH - AS SUCH OBAMA IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF US.
I have shown that this is wrong.
I wouldn't say so, I'd say you've just attacked me and mainly made assertions.
As to the "split loyalty" question; as far as I can see, there is no evidence that the framers of the US constitution didn't want "split loyalties" in future leaders (and if they had, I expect they would have written it down). The evidence just shows that they didn't want a president who was too young to eat solid food.
It seems like fair speculation if that's what it is that a nation formed out by revolt and effective civil war would want clear national ties and loyalty.
So, do you think you could agree that the article has no merit, as was pretty clear from the start?
Not at this point, no I don't agree. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108832, posted by Stoppers at 07:38, 22/11/2008, in reply to message #108830 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
So, do you think you could agree that the article has no merit, as was pretty clear from the start? Not at this point, no I don't agree.
OK, so lets clarify matters a little.
Do you accept that:
Obama is a natural born citizen of the USA?
Obama being able to claim British citizenship at birth does not preclude him also being a natural born citizen of the USA?
nowhere in the Constitution of the USA is it written that "the President must not have had any other jurisdiction over him at birth"?
I'd appreciate a simple yes or no, to each part of the question, and preferably, in case of disagreement, a reference (to something other than that article) that shows it not to be the case. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #108834, posted by andrew at 20:59, 23/11/2008, in reply to message #108832 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
We've been through all of this already and I've said for me "time will tell" what's true and what isn't. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #108836, posted by filecore at 21:58, 23/11/2008, in reply to message #108834 |
Posts: 3868
|
Yes, do give it a rest please, both of you. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Simon Willcocks |
Message #108837, posted by Stoppers at 07:46, 24/11/2008, in reply to message #108836 |
Member
Posts: 302
|
JOKE!
. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
The Icon Bar: The Playpen: President Obama, then |
|
