Why so serious?
pr Wrote: I actually know of more people born here of non-US citizens that decided to take the citizenship of their parents rather than the US when they became of age. I could never understand why at the time but now it seems like a sensible thing! My sister just applied for and received an Italian passport so she can retire in Europe if she pleases and she got it on the basis of our fathers' parents being born in Italy over 150 years ago! I'm not so sure I understand what you're saying, pr. Anyone born in America is an American citizen. Many countries allow American born citizens to have duel citizenship in the country of their parents origin without forcing them to disown their American citizenship.
My girlfriend is a case in point. Her parents were born in Ireland and emigrated to the United States. She was born in the United States, but has duel citizenship because that's the way the laws work in Ireland, and in much of the EU.
So someone deciding to take the citizenship of their parents is fine. They can legally do that in many countries throughout the world without disowning their American citizenship. However, if they want to disown their American citizenship then they can, but doing so is pretty damn stupid if you ask me.
One of my office-mates has triple citizenship: Columbia, Brazil, US. His father was Columbian, mother lived in Brazil and moved to Minnesota. He was not forced to choose, although his opinion is that if he had to pick, it would probably be the US citizenship, due to the power of protection it usually conveys. He traveled for business a lot between the US and Brazil, and presents his Brazilian passport when he enters Brazil, and his US passport when he enters the US, and never needs a Visa. He did mention something I hadn't thought of: If he were to get in trouble with the Brazilian police, he would have a much harder time fleeing to the States, since as a Brazilian citizen, the Embassy wouldn't necessarily exert pressure on Brazil to let him leave, or stick their neck out for him.
I read your post pr and (no offense) I was a bit stunned. It is the same thing I hear a lot of older conservatives say, haha. The countries are different of course, usually Australia, Costa Rica, Belize, or New Zealand. It is interesting to know that the sentiment of the worth of a US citizenship and emigrating to other countries to get out of the US is on both sides.
TJ Wrote: Or your brother could learn to do something else. He might consider North Dakota. The crude/shale oil is a dirty mess. Money usually rules the world so it's production will continue and not slow down. The Saudi over production has seriously helped our economy and hurt Russia at the same time. I'm sorry that your brother and others have employment problems. This country has dealt with that for a very long time with manufacturing leaving for slave labor (bigger profits for the few) but wrecked lives for so damned many people. Our next financial crunch is probably the trillion dollars of student loan debt without matching jobs to pay for it. There are problems everywhere. Tony, yes that is a typical problem in a Capitalistic society; the one percent and greed rules. Lets attack some more countries that will keep the money flowing to the one percent; you can't make money on oil alone..
Actually, I agree with Obama's hands-off policy with Yemen so far. When we go in and try to stabilize things, that helps drop the price of oil. I'd rather it be higher than lower.
TJ Wrote: Or your brother could learn to do something else. He might consider North Dakota. The crude/shale oil is a dirty mess. Money usually rules the world so it's production will continue and not slow down. The Saudi over production has seriously helped our economy and hurt Russia at the same time. I'm sorry that your brother and others have employment problems. This country has dealt with that for a very long time with manufacturing leaving for slave labor (bigger profits for the few) but wrecked lives for so damned many people. Our next financial crunch is probably the trillion dollars of student loan debt without matching jobs to pay for it. There are problems everywhere.
Totally agree the student debt is out of control and is crippling us. I was lucky enough to get out of College with minimal debt thanks to an Army Scholarship, but most people I was friends with were not so lucky, and are already 5 years behind me in the 'traditional' life steps (house, baby, etc) because what they would have used as their house payment gets sucked up into loan debt.
North Dakota is in the same boat as Texas; my father works for a different service company up there as a field service tech. They are at a standstill as well. My brother has no college degree and not much money, so his prospects are limited.
Oilfield manufacturing is one of the last major manufacturing sectors where the USA still dominates. Go to a rig in Russia, SE Asia, the Indian Ocean, Caspian Sea, the North Sea, Africa, etc, and the Oil tools are most likely made in America. No one can challenge American quality in the Oilfield yet, although China is trying. That industry is centered around Southern California and the Houston area, and is careening toward a cliff in a few months now that new drilling has dried up. Pipe fitters, welders, low level service techs, roughnecks, engineers, accountants, all of which are American (often a new immigrant) are getting laid off and trying to find work elsewhere in a weak economy.
Right now, it is estimated that for shale oil to break even in the USA, it has to be at $65 a barrel (estimated. Exxon, Chevron, Shell, etc can do it more cheaply than the mom-and-pop companies that have sprung up in the last 10 years. A lot of those are much higher 'break-even', and unfortunately the big companies are buying up the failing start ups and consolidating their hold on the market) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-breakeven-price-crude-oil-194354497.html
. The Saudis can do it for $27 a barrel, because they import Bangladeshi workers, confiscate their passports, and don't pay them anything to work. I've been to Dubai and seen it myself. It's deplorable and the definition of slave labor.
The big companies like Exxon can weather a few years of low prices, mainly because they don't actually own any drilling rigs or operations. The Oil business is a giant web of subcontractors; At a given well, there might be one Exxon rep (called the "Company Man") to oversee the operation. The only thing Exxon owns is the mineral rights, to limit their liability. The drilling rig is owned by another company, some of the major names are Ensco, TransOcean, Diamond Drilling, Longzhu, and others. Then the workers to drill are supplied by yet another company, (Schlumberger, Halliburton, GE Oil & Gas, FMC), and so on and so forth.
What this does is allows Exxon to cut bait and basically fire all the subcontractors when the price of oil drops. Exxon gets away clean and just keeps pumping oil, while the subcontractors have no work for their people, and have to lay 1000s of people off or go bankrupt, or both.
Yes, I would agree it is a good thing for the average consumer, but with the shale boom, there are a lot of US companies that depend on a certain margin to stay afloat. One of the main complaints by the Right over the last few decades was the dependency on foreign oil, but the shale boom has all but ended that. Now, we may be beholden to the Saudis again, if they get their way. In the oil patch here in Texas, my brother just survived an 80% layoff in oil field workers, because the drilling has basically ceased. His company is not the exception. There is the beginning of a real depression here in Texas now, due to the large influx of people who moved here for an oil job, and are now out of work. For-sale signs have sprung up all over my neighborhood. The oil economy was a large factor in the job growth over the past few years, one of the major bright spots in the country, and now that's dying a hard and brutal death.
What benefits Russian oil producers benefits us in this regard. We want oil and natural gas to be higher, but not due to a drop in US production (which means less jobs and money staying in the US) but due to a drop in foreign production. We need either Venezuela to plunge into civil war, Yemen's conflict to spill into Saudi Arabia, or ISIS to shut off Iraqi production. Russian oil production falling off a cliff would be great too, but they are in so deep that they might not be able to afford to stop.
that guy in Arizona Wrote: In case you're wondering ...
Mephistopheles is a DEMON featured in German folklore. The name itself is derived from the Hebrew word mephitz, which is translated as "falsehood plasterer. Although new contributors are always welcome, it's always wise to not take too seriously someone whose name is translated as "lies like a rug".
I figured the name would be ironic since I assumed everyone here would assume that as a conservative, I was only lying when I was typing. Why not own the mantle? Seriously, it is in jest, but you you find me out on a mistruth, I don't want to have my facts wrong and wouldn't mind a call out.
that guy in Arizona Wrote: The following appeared on the Daily Kos today, and is worth reading:
I actually looked up Deuteronomy 23:1, and it basically says the same thing as quoted here. I won't tell you when (or if) I had my vasectomy, but it's pretty clear I would not be welcome in this establishment.
That post is hilarious. I never tire of bringing up just those points to people who rage about 'Dem sinful homo-sexuals!' My response is "Did you shave today?"
Mmmm, I'm not sure what you mean. We've reduced the Army size by another division due to the sequester, and from what I can tell on the DOD website, we're going down even further.http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121703
Under a Pentagon budget that will shrink by more than $75 billion over the next two years -- with deeper cuts expected if sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016 -- Hagel and other senior defense and military officials acknowledged that some of the budget choices will create additional risks in certain areas.
Some of that risk, Hagel said, is associated with a sharp drawdown in the size of the Army, which the proposed budget calls for reducing to as low as 440,000 active duty soldiers from the current size of 520,000, while ensuring the force remains well trained and equipped.
Now, our total numbers on most metrics include our Navy, USMC, and Air Force personnel too. That's why we still look so large.
For comparison, the total Army size of other countries (I'm assuming a minimum navy, which in the Russians' case who knows?):http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/armies.htm
I don't think it is a problem reducing Army size to our current levels, or even further. A mechanized division and associated equipment can be built from the ground up within about 6-12 months, much faster if it is a light infantry division. What would be much more troublesome is a reduction in Carrier Fleets. It takes over 10 years to build a state of the art carrier fleet (1 supercarrier with 5-10 cruiser escorts, plus supply ships, smaller screens, and aircraft squadrons) and that is truly where our super power status lies. Carrier fleets are what allow us to project power to protect allies throughout the world, and without them we are a regional power in north america, at best. We currently have 11, with all of them being outdated Nimitz design from the 1970s. We have plans to update with the new Ford class, but cuts to the Navy's budget might scrap it.
The great thing about Naval spending is the Navy is unlikely to be able to run a martial law over the US, and doesn't have the footprint overseas that land posts do.
While the terrain may be good for conducting mock drills, I have a harder time understanding how our cities and towns would be comparable to any of the cities and towns where conflicts are currently underway in Iraq and other areas. Tikrit and Mosul don't look like any US cities I have seen in the southwest.
Yes but I guess they'd be the closest to it? Not defending SOCOM's decision making here, but I don't think this is a sinister plot. It's just dumb leadership on their part.
Schmidt Wrote: From Wikipedia:
It would seem that several states get by just fine with no voter IDs or non-photo voter IDs. So why do some states like Texas have such strict voter IDs? To suppress the vote in those states. The more difficult you make it to register to vote and to vote, the more likely you will not make the effort. This primarily affects voters more inclined to vote for Democrats. In Texas your concealed gun permit ID is okay as a photo ID but not your student ID.
I can tell you from a republican perspective, the only vote we intend to suppress is the non-citizen vote. In Texas, there is little danger of a blue takeover, even with the demographic shift (by second generation, Texan latinos swing red quite a bit more than California latinos; they seem to be adopting a slightly left tilt to match the current white voting trends in the state they settle.http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/11/07/hispanic-voters-in-the-2014-election/
Can't figure out how to post an image, but there is a graphic in there that shows what I am talking about. Many of the polling places are manned by latinos (both GOP and DNC) and suppressing a latino vote would be problematic, to say the least. Still, I cannot find anything to back up the claim that a vote is being suppressed (I know the rules for burden of proof here and am not asking, simply stating I cannot find any). If anything, a national ID card (for free) should be instituted if this is a serious issue. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote, but only if they are a citizen.
Zach F Wrote: Ultimately, it is up for the courts to decide. No precedent has ever been set regarding this particular requirement of the Constitution and the courts have generally avoided making any kind of ruling in the past on the subject. It is unlikely that they will be forced to make a ruling on the subject since it is highly unlikely that Cruz has any chance of making it beyond the primary. It is weird that the courts haven't ruled on this yet. I, too, think that Cruz is eligible, but I do get some joy in pointing out the right's blatant hypocrisy on the issue.
Personally, I think Cruz is eligible to be President. If he wasn't legally required by law to go through a naturalization process, then I would consider that a natural born citizen.
One thing that will be interesting is when a U.S. Citizen who was born in the United States to undocumented immigrants, but moved back to their country of origin if their parents were deported, has a child themselves. According the law as it is currently written, that child will be a United States Citizen because its mother is. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if things that that are already happening.
If you believe it, there are stories of Chinese women flying to the US and being put up in 'birthing spas' until they have a baby, get it citizenship, and go back to China. I have no proof of this, to be clear, and am not sure how much more US citizenship is worth than Chinese these days, to be honest.
I'd prefer if Cruz just bow out, and the citizenship issue is as good as any. He is not presidential material.
“This exercise is routine training to maintain a high level of readiness for Army Special Operations Forces because they must be ready to support potential missions anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice,” Lastoria told Shadow Spear.
Paul Pape, a Bastrop County judge, however fears that the training was in reality rehearsal for full-blown martial law on the streets of America.
“What I see here is an opportunity for a portion of our military to be better prepared and better trained to do work that has to be done to secure America’s interests around the world and here at home,” Pape told KEYE television in Austin, Texas.
A number of citizen groups and media also speculate on why the entire states of Texas and Utah, as well as a section of southern California, have been declared “hostile.”
“They're having Delta Force, Navy SEALS with the Army trained to basically take over,” Info Wars' Alex Jones railed Sunday. “Texas is listed as a hostile sector, and of course, we are... here defending the republic.”
While anything Alex Jones says should be taken with a whole salt shaker, as a former Army officer, I understand the logic of what they are trying to do, somewhat. The Southwest is the best place, not because of impending drought, but because the conditions simulate those of the current hottest sector in the world, the Middle East. Any training exercise that involves brigade level or higher planning is going to pick a region of the world to 'simulate'. I've been involved in simulated invasions of Azerbaijan, Laos, Romania, Ghana, etc. all under different names. Its much easier to just pull up a map with roads and borders already on it than draw something up from scratch. For what it's worth, we 'invaded' Columbus, Georgia and Tacoma, Washington too.
What the Alex Jones and Stormfront groups don't seem to understand is that the US military had a VERY difficult time suppressing an insurrection of a nation of 30 million (Iraq) with no major mountain ranges and a very low ratio of armed populace. How exactly is it possible for our army to install martial law over a nation 10 times that, covered in mountains, forests, large urban sprawl, and with ready access to firearms and ammunition?
Now, as long as they have informed the locals and gotten permission, (which, if they hadn't, would [a] mean that we wouldn't have heard about this and [b] would defeat the purpose of doing the infiltration training, since most rural areas in the southwest would likely give the SF dudes a ticker-tape parade if they found one on the street and didn't know they were supposed to help) this shouldn't been more than a minor inconvenience. I will say that the SF guys are crazy to a man, and this is just the kind of thing they would think would be a great training event, without thinking how it would be perceived.