On 8/4/2012 4:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> "American Citizen" is used to reflect someone who is a citizen of the US;
>> "Natural Born [American] Citizen" is used to denote someone who received
>> their citizenship by being born here.
>
> That would be the correct legal terms, yes.
>
So.. Here the joke about the Rethuglican that wants to attack this 
definition's allowance that it must be on "US soil", as defined as 
military bases, and other US sovereign locations, but is too stupid to 
realize it would put dozens of his own party members in the position of 
being illegal, including the one they just got through praising as "far 
better than that current guy, which we need to get rid of by making this 
illegal!"

---bit of a rant---

I swear... The only thing worse than trying to figure out what the hell 
some people high up in the government are doing is figuring out what 
they are doing "local". City council positions are up this election. 
There are like 8 names for possible candidates, it says, "Pick three". I 
found vague references on two of them, but nothing substantial, a 
facebook page for one, which suggest they are "family values" oriented, 
which is a buzz phrase in the US for, "Batshit insane, probably 
Republican, and definitely right wing.", one comment in a news article 
where a candidate basically claimed liberals where crazy, and scared of 
the Tea Party (which, of course, means she escalated herself into the, 
"Even more insane than the facebook person, who might just have a vague 
position, which happens to echo rhetoric from the loonies."), and one 
reference to a candidate, which involved their association with 
education groups. That last one was the only one that came even *close* 
to representing a policy position.

How the hell do you vote sane people into office, and vote out the 
morons, if they all think that the only thing you need to know about 
them, when making a decision, was... nothing? Not even, in the case of 
the council, what party they are in, which at least, would suggest 
*something* about their positions, even if not much.

But, that isn't the worst part. Nearly everyone else on all other 
categories are nearly as bad, some of them having nothing more than a 
page saying, "This person is a candidate, but has made no statements 
about anything at all, while running." Given this is Arizona, and the 
law, idiotically, doesn't let you vote in the primary for anyone not in 
your own party (wouldn't want people wasting their vote, by picking the 
less insane candidate from the other party, and thus causing that party 
to not get what they think is best for them.", or some insane argument. 
The second election, you get to pick between their bloviating idiot, and 
yours though, which usually means a right wing nutcase, and a 
"middle-right Democrat"... But, even if you only get one name, how the 
hell are you supposed to figure out if they are any better or worse than 
the other side's pick, if all they have is a blank page, a picture, and 
***nothing*** about what they stand for? Its like they think: "Well, its 
a choice between what ever Democrat means, and the right, so of course 
they will vote for me." No.. You might be crazier than they are, but I 
can't tell, because you won't take a stand on anything.

Post a reply to this message