 | septrose14 on Reddit layoffs |
 | shelldigger on Thought of the day |
 | The Sauciest Duck on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
 | Michael on Chauvin and Rittenhouse |
| Stephen Moreton on Chauvin and Rittenhouse | |
 | Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Merry Christmas |
| Mele Kalikimaka | Fo… on Mele Kalikimaka |
 | somdeblahiriyahoocoi… on Thought of the day |
| Michael on Wuhan virus and one last… |
| Quick correction | F… on The A-Unicornist, Bernie Bro… |
America has a new laughing stock:
The state of Arizona has moved onto contentious political territory once again with the legislative passage of a bill requiring President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names can appear on the state’s ballot.
With states like Arizona maybe Maine can avoid appearing on Comedy Central quite so often.
For the Sake of Science 
I don’t really see the issue here. Certainly its related to the birther thing, but lets be realistic for a second.
The constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen and have lived in the US for 14 years prior to election.
How do you get all crazy about a law that requires proof a person meets the constitutional requirements?
The criticisms of this bill are just as crazy as the birthers themselves. Come on now.
That law is just another example of the wacky religious right wing conservatives mental disease running amok. Arizona is such a beautiful state but is now ruined by these nut jobs. Soon the tea party bigots, racists, misogynists and haters will all be eliminated from public discourse as rational people see the results of the the conservative right wing minority.
Notify
Again, I fail to see how a law requiring proof a candidate meets constitutional requirements is evidence of anything you just mentioned.
I would say this law will simply prevent another ‘birther’ movement with a future president. You should be applauding it.
In all likelihood it will be awhile before we have another black person run for president after Obama, so a significant portion of the GOP will have to glom onto some different blatant falsehood down the road.
This is a nutty law, because we know what the real motivation is here.
However, Bob, I don’t see what this has to do with Christianity. Prehaps you could explain.
I’m with Nate on this one. It’s a constitutional requirement , has been for years now. Should have been the norm for every state since the creation of that clause in the constitution. I don’t see the big deal.
Other Michael is right of course, we know what the real motivation is here, but as Shawn says, this should be the norm, not the exception.
It’s not going to stop anyone from making the ever popular birth certificates (not me, they are great) but it should put to rest the conspiracy theorists that really think there is no birth certificates.
Again won’t affect the jokes about grassy knolls and Obamas birth certificate, but the crazies should settle down. (or at least go back to screaming about vaccines and such)
Other Michael, everything has to do with Christianity to Bob, no string of riffraff is complete without a jab at religious people. Understandable, as we are the cause of all bad things in the world. Just the other day my catholic buddies an I got together and made it cold and rainy. You’re welcome.
birth certificate jokes*
I forgot the jokes part in paragraph 2. Ahh!
I wonder, has anyone but me read this bill? Or is everyone else just relying on what some reporter of indeterminate competence has reported?
Michael (other):
A large portion of the right wing are Chrisian fundamentalists. They instigate the opposition to many ‘moral’ issues.
Like laws that actually ensure the constitutional requirements are upheld for office? Those haters.
The law doesn’t just apply to the president, but to all of their state offices that require US citizenship as well. That’s probably because they don’t want Obama to vote in the state right?
Crazies don’t “settle down.” If they were denied the birth-certificate angle, they would simply move on to the Secret Muslim angle, or invent a new Trilateral Commission-Manchurian Candidate angle.
Attempting to satisfy the demands of irrational nutjobs is a never-ending and ultimately pointless task.
Again, I don’t know why it’s irrational to enact a law to ensure the requirements are met. I think it’s more irrational for people to be droning on against it.
Does anyone really have objections to a mechanism to make sure these requirements are met? Simply because of the crazies some states have said “you know, we aren’t actually checking that anyone meets the requirements for these offices”.
This is a good law and every state should have the same thing. No one has yet made any argument why this isn’t a great idea.
Nate, you have to wonder what the inspiration is behind the law here.
When liberals want to force fast food restaurants to carry nutritional information, its because they want to discourage people from eating the food (a result that doesn’t actually follow) When a republican and a democrat in our capitol presented bills that would require doctors to read the ingredients of vaccines, and to stop requiring public school children to have them, it was because they wanted less children go get vaccines. When Democrats want to stop people from showing an ID to vote, its because they’re afraid it will lesson the numbers of votes their candidates get.
Call me a small government type if you will, but I want less laws and legislation, and redundant laws should always be avoided. This measure in Arizona will not ferret out a secret Manchurian candidate like you are saying.
This is wrong on two counts. First, it’s a matter of people being aware of what they are eating. Currently there is little legislation which requires restaurants to post information – and where it does exist (or where restaurants have voluntarily posted it in order to avoid legislation), it is often hidden from view. Second, the average calories in doughnuts and other junk foods has dropped in New York City. Just like when people look at the nutritional information on what they buy at the grocery store, they look at what they’re eating in restaurants – when the information is available.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15648
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-10-26-calories-on-the-menu_N.htm
Your, quite right. I’m not saying it will. It is however a proper function of state governments to ensure candidates meet the requirements for office, so I think its a good idea to do so. Otherwise, why have requirements?
If they won’t let me be president because I’m not 35, likewise those who want to run should be made to meet the other requirements as well.
Motivations don’t matter as much as results. I agree with you in what the motivations were, in part. But it can’t be the only motivation here, this bill puts a framework in place for all state and federal candidates for office and an appeals process.
Again I think its a great piece of legislation. If we don’t want these requirements enforced we need to change the constitution, not cry when a state decides to enforce them instead of ignoring them.
And fast food business in San Fran has plummeted since the toy ban and sky rocketed in the suburbs. Good work liberals.
And why is a good thing that calories have dropped in doughnuts? It doesn’t seem like a good or bad thing to me, it seems like a personal assessment. It’s none of your business to decide whats too many calories and what just enough for someone else.
Well Michael, it looks like we have dueling studies
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41078893/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/
Very well, it looks like a draw on this issue. So the list of results we have are modest on your side, and null on mine.
The point I was trying to make is that that was a rule pushed a lot harder for certain types of restaurants – fast food – and gourmet restaurants that have even higher calorie counts get a pass. It’s about punishing low-status consumers and not high-status consumers.
Nate,
While the magic market that libertarians believe in is actually quite limited, it does have some power when we give it power. In this case, government gave it power by giving consumers more information. That information is what has led restaurants in NYC to lower average calorie levels. I would think you would actually favor this.
Michael,
I’ve seen that study. As you know, it focuses on Taco Bell restaurants in one small area. And even then I’m not sure how visible the information is. That is key to changing behaviors. For an anecdote (and I’m sure there are studies that can be found to back this up), watch people while you shop at the grocery store. People pay attention to the nutritional information, parents care about cereals that say “25% less sugar!”, and tricky things like SmartOption products sell.
If the goal is to give consumers more info Michael, than why are small restaurants exempt? Why are these restrictions or req’s always put on chains? And in California, san fran has actually dictated that if they want to put toys in meals they have to peet certain exacting requirements. That’s ridiculous interference.
There’s a New York Study that Robin Hanson wrote about as well, and his point was that people supported this policy before the science was out because they thought it SHOULD work.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/01/nutrition-labels.html
Nate,
It isn’t practical to require small restaurants to go through the process and cost of getting their food tested.
Michael,
That study has a huge number of confounding factors, including the recession. Fast food has been doing well because of its general cheapness, especially in poorer areas – areas which tend to be fatter than wealthier locations.
The numbers vary quite a bit, but a large portion of Americans do check labels at the grocery store (usually between 33-60%). Of those an even smaller portion actually gives two shits, but without labeling that portion would be even smaller – all the while waist lines get bigger. There is no single solution to the obesity epidemic in the U.S., but proper food labeling is an important factor.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1158914.html
http://www.emaxhealth.com/14/6389.html
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2009_Food_Health_Survey_Consumer_Attitudes_toward_Food_Nutrition_and_Health
If its “save lives” surely its practical. No? Isn’t that the much of the argument for the fat food restaurants doing it?
I just see these being a lot like cigarette warning labels today…
Pointless, because everyone knows its going to kill you. Find me a person that things McDonald’s is good for you. (or cigarettes)