NYT pretends McCain can't be president.

sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
edited February 2008 in Strut Central
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/pol...olitics&emc=rssAt first, I thought the headline was a joke. Especially after the hit piece last week - a front page article on a rhumor about a sex scandal that never happened. This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market and only 24% of the public believe them (probably the same 24% that still support the democratic Congress).

  Comments


  • If he was born on February 29th, they may have written an article that he's not really 35 years old.



    Stupid pseudo legal arguments supporting the NYT starting ........now.

  • UnherdUnherd 1,880 Posts
    If Obama was born under these conditions, u don't think there'd be radio hosts introducing McCain going after this?

    The Democrats however will not need to resort to these tactics to beat Grandpa 100-Years War. I have yet to hear a line of attack from McCain that differs from those that have failed for Hillary. His "al qaeda in Iraq" attack yesterday was a joke...

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/pol...olitics&emc=rss


    At first, I thought the headline was a joke. Especially after the hit piece last week - a front page article on a rhumor about a sex scandal that never happened. This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market and only 24% of the public believe them (probably the same 24% that still support the democratic Congress).


    its newsworthy and they didn't take a side. the guy was born in the panama canal and the constitution says the presidency is only open to natural born citizens. its ridiculous and should be amended, but as the nyt points out, its not something mccain is ignoring.

    as for their stock going down, there is something called the internet that has been devastating newspapers all across the country. your boy kristoff just got op-ed space, what are you complaining about? go read the ny post!

  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    I say we let Rush Limbaugh decide.

    I remember growing up clearly hearing that you had to be born in the 50 states to be president.

    from Wikipedia:

    Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
    ^ 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14.

  • jleejlee 1,539 Posts
    This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market

    uh...no

    with the exception of a very limited few, almost all newpapers that are public have seen their stock decrease over the last 5 years.

    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/industr...mpind=aaaaa%3A0


    but, i do agree that NYT has shown their ass with the coverage of McCain.

  • GaryGary 3,982 Posts
    I say we let Rush Limbaugh decide.

    I remember growing up clearly hearing that you had to be born in the 50 states to be president.

    from Wikipedia:

    Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
    ^ 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14.


    I have a really hard time beleiving that GIs stationed around the world are having babys that aren't US Citizens. I've never heard of GIs having to fill out imigration paperwork for their own kids. I'm calling bullshit.

  • I say we let Rush Limbaugh decide.

    I remember growing up clearly hearing that you had to be born in the 50 states to be president.

    from Wikipedia:

    Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
    ^ 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14.


    I have a really hard time beleiving that GIs stationed around the world are having babys that aren't US Citizens. I've never heard of GIs having to fill out imigration paperwork for their own kids. I'm calling bullshit.


    That law only applies to non-US citizens who have children in an American facility overseas. For example, if a Panamanian woman working in a kitchen in the US base goes into labor and her child is delivered in the base's medical facility, that child is not a US citizen.

  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    And what does this mean for the Caesarian-born? People with nothing better to do want to know.

  • JuniorJunior 4,853 Posts
    And what does this mean for the Caesarian-born? People with nothing better to do want to know.

    I wasn't aware these people were even allowed to vote.

  • interesting story, i believe this deserves to be printed (unlike the last piece)
    you really can't disqualify him though

    the others mentioned:
    Lowell Weicker was born in Paris to American parents
    George Romney was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    And what does this mean for the Caesarian-born? People with nothing better to do want to know.

    It means that when they leave their house they tend to climb out a window rather than use the front door.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    interesting story, i believe this deserves to be printed (unlike the last piece)
    you really can't disqualify him though

    the others mentioned:
    Lowell Weicker was born in Paris to American parents
    George Romney was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico

    I believe Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territories before they were part of the 50 States.

  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    interesting story, i believe this deserves to be printed (unlike the last piece)
    you really can't disqualify him though

    the others mentioned:
    Lowell Weicker was born in Paris to American parents
    George Romney was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico

    I believe Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territories before they were part of the 50 States.

    I heard McCain was born in New Amsterdam before the American Revolution and is thus ineligible to be president. Can anyone confirm?

  • And what does this mean for the Caesarian-born? People with nothing better to do want to know.

    It means that when they leave their house they tend to climb out a window rather than use the front door.

    Ha!

  • GaryGary 3,982 Posts
    So I didn't read the article... are McCain's parents not americans?


    that would be different. I wouldn't really care one way or the other, but it would be different.

  • This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market and only 24% of the public believe them (probably the same 24% that still support the democratic Congress).


    lol. yeah print media is the shitter because of partisan reporting. now THAT'S funny.

  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    I say we let Rush Limbaugh decide.

    I remember growing up clearly hearing that you had to be born in the 50 states to be president.

    from Wikipedia:

    Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
    ^ 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14.


    I have a really hard time beleiving that GIs stationed around the world are having babys that aren't US Citizens. I've never heard of GIs having to fill out imigration paperwork for their own kids. I'm calling bullshit.


    That law only applies to non-US citizens who have children in an American facility overseas. For example, if a Panamanian woman working in a kitchen in the US base goes into labor and her child is delivered in the base's medical facility, that child is not a US citizen.

    I believe you may technically wrong about this. I think any "American" children born this way are technically considered "naturalized" citizens not by birth. Read the wiki article it explains the issues. Of course this is a silly rule but if it disqualifies McCain then I am all for it.

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,473 Posts
    I first saw this argument about a month ago on a right-wing blog (they were largely Romniacs there and still refer to McCain as "McLame," though they're talking themselves into supporting him). I thought it was a complete crock.



  • At first, I thought the headline was a joke. Especially after the hit piece last week - a front page article on a rhumor about a sex scandal that never happened. This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market and only 24% of the public believe them (probably the same 24% that still support the democratic Congress).



    that's a great picture of that turd ball.

  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts


    At first, I thought the headline was a joke. Especially after the hit piece last week - a front page article on a rhumor about a sex scandal that never happened. This is why NYT stock has been down for the past five years in bull market and only 24% of the public believe them (probably the same 24% that still support the democratic Congress).



    yeah, except you will never hear the words "sex scandal" pass this man's lips.

  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    Leave it to Democrats to solved McCain's problems.

    Bill Would Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By CARL HULSE
    Published: February 29, 2008

    WASHINGTON ??? Senator John McCain said Thursday that he had no concerns about his meeting the constitutional qualifications for the presidency because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. A Democratic colleague said she wanted to remove even a trace of doubt.

    McCain???s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out (February 28, 2008)

    The Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced legislation that would declare that any child born abroad to citizens serving in the United States military would meet the constitutional requirement that anyone serving as president be a ???natural born??? citizen.

    ???In America, so many parents say to their young children, ???If you work hard and you play by the rules, in America someday you can be president of the United States,??? ??? said Ms. McCaskill, a supporter of the presidential bid of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. ???Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute worrying whether or not that saying is true for their child.???

    Traveling on his presidential campaign, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said that he was convinced he was eligible under the natural-born definition and that from his perspective the matter had been reviewed and settled in earlier campaigns. Mr. McCain was born in 1936 on a military base in the Canal Zone, where his father, a Navy officer, was stationed at the time.

    ???It???s very clear,??? Mr. McCain said. ???An American born in a territory of the United States whose father is serving in the military could not be eligible for presidency of the United States is certainly not something our founding fathers envisioned.???

    Legal scholars who have explored the issue say that a conclusive legal finding on the clause has never been delivered and that there is the potential for some uncertainty about whether someone born outside the nation proper would qualify.

    To date, no president has been born outside what would become one of the 50 states. A handful of serious candidates have been born elsewhere but none were elected and the citizenship question was not tested.

    Senior members of Mr. McCain???s campaign team have also said they are very comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the definition of natural born and that he could overcome any challenge should one be made.

    They have asked Theodore B. Olson, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer and McCain supporter, to prepare a legal analysis of the issue.

    A group of lawmakers made an unsuccessful effort four years ago to eliminate any lingering doubts about the meaning of the provision through legislation that would have said children born outside the country to American citizens are eligible for the presidency.

    Ms. McCaskill said that her legislation should be noncontroversial and that Congress should move rapidly to clear up any ambiguity. She acknowledged there could be some who believe the only route to resolve the confusion is through a constitutional amendment.

    ???We can at least make a legislative declaration that the definition of ???natural born??? includes children of the active military,??? she said. ???This should be done quickly and easily.???

  • mannybolonemannybolone Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
    For real: at what point will they amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens to run for President? At this point, it seems unnecessary to maintain that exclusion.

    (And no, this is not a secret wish to see Ahnauld run).

  • GaryGary 3,982 Posts
    Here's some sorta off topic but bizarre trivia... the last of Korea's royal line... the last of the royal family still alive... is.... a little old white lady living in korea! Its true!

  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    Here's some sorta off topic but bizarre trivia... the last of Korea's royal line... the last of the royal family still alive... is.... a little old white lady living in korea! Its true!

    Dude step up your jpeg game.

  • GaryGary 3,982 Posts






    Korea's "Last Princess", Julia Mullock.
Sign In or Register to comment.