The Man From Chicago ne (Hawaii)

[Diogenes]

You're obviously one of those people with no comprehension skill who has to be led around everyplace he goes by a little boy with a light. As for defending yourself you butted in having no clue what you were.

Your responses are totally out of order, carlton. Sober up and act like the rest of the forum would expect you to.

Better still, why do you bother to post here? You have posted several hundred posts of which 687 have been in 'general' and 1 has been in 'theory' (in 2008)!!!

Of the 14 posts in 'news', only 1 has been posted in the last 18 months.

What's your interest in polywell and fusion? You seem to be extremely bad at demonstrating any interest in it. I expect most here are currently thinking how embarrassed you should be feeling that I had to point this out to you.

I encourage the forum not to participate in any more of carlton's threads, until s/he expresses some interest in polywell and fusion.

I think it goes without saying that as 'general' is "to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts" then we should not encorage those who've shown no enthusiams for the subject in this forum.

I used to post in Theory and Design. I finally realized that too much of the discussion was based on speculation of notions that had not yet been verified. (Edge Annealing, Recirculation through the cusps, or oscillations in and out of them, Scaling confirmation, pulsed or steady state, etc.)


I decided that I was tired of guessing whether or not some effect was or was not occurring, and that I for one would wait till I could see some real data (ostensibly from EMC^2) or perhaps that outfit in Australia, before I would renew my interest in the theory of BFR. Even Art Carlson has been seemingly absent for quite some time. The Theory thread has just been going around in circles for quite awhile in my opinion.


In the absence of new information with which to discuss the polywell design, Politics is the most important thing (in my opinion) which can be discussed. I do not know if jccarlton feels the same way, but I would not be surprised if he does. The notion that my nation may be in the early stages of a Socialist Dictatorship is in my opinion very worth of exploring and discussing. The consequences of the last several socialist dictators were so dire that any effort to avoid such a thing should be fully supported.

[Diogenes]

Just for a bit of levity:

[Jccarlton]

The viewpoints of Jccarlton is his own. He attempts to reenforce this viewpoint by referencing sources which agrees with him. This does not validate anything except that someone else has his viewpoint. I should point out that this is true for any viewpoint or conclusion by anyone. If the reference can withstand close examination then it gains some validity. Jccarlton seems unwilling to allow examination of claims. One of the most potent tools of a blogger, or communicator is the half truth. They may point out some fact that seems reasonable to a broad audience, but then uses this as a springboard to push unsupported and often completely unrelated issues. Rush Limbaugh is a true artist in this technique, as is any good debater, so long as there is not a referee. Also, a true debate cannot occur when an opposing viewpoint is not tolerated.

It is revealing that Jccarlton's primary mode of communication when a subject is in debate is to attack any who does not comply with his opinions. I find it morbidly amusing that he practices the art of belittlement and intimidation, when this is a large part of what he criticizes.

Dan Tibbets

It would really help if you actually bothered to READ the things I link to rather than just responding to a Pavlovian buttons. And how much time do you actually listen to Rush to actually know how he uses his program. I will note that I have been listening to the man for 20 years now off and on and I have never actually heard him use the techniques you describe. Satire, yes. But he does keep on topic, sometimes for much longer than the topic deserves, presents the other side of the issue for discussion and provides links if you want to follow up, which I frequently do. You on the other hand seem to be doing exactly as you describe, an all to common prog tactic when they mouth off about issues they are clueless about, so your discussion of Rush represents nothing more than a little projection. As for the current discussion, you are STILL patronizing us, STILL clueless and most importantly STILL being stupidly wrong. and by the way stop refering to me in the third person as if I'm some sort of lower life form. It's REALLY rude, REALLY patronizing and just makes you look like an idiodic snob.

[palladin9479]

I stopped reading that link when it got into the "birther" part. Obama could of been born in China and he would of still been eligible, his mother is a US citizen therefor he is a natural born US citizen as are tens of thousands of military babies born all over the world. It was a created issue used to sling mud during the 2008 elections, and was cleverly used by the Obama administration to score political points recently. Anyone who tries to argue that he's not eligible is just trolling at this point in time.

Those articles are entirely too anti-Obama to actually be from an actual insider source. I mean seriously just follow the story and it breaks down into this "some great new political figure rose up and would shake the money tree so the powers that be shut him down, if only he was allowed to run the world would be full of pony's and rainbows". That is an old tried and true political tactic to manipulate people's emotions and sway them to your side. Trump dropped out because everyone would raid his financial records and business history looking for anything inappropriate and using it as mud against him. He's a successful businessman that virtually guarantee's he lied / stole / cheated at some point in time and just hasn't been caught yet, it comes with the territory. He decided his ongoing business relations where more important then a possible Presidential run. Instead of battling off enemies every day and having his life sucked out of him for the next 9 years he decided to maintain his kingly lifestyle and near omnipotent power base.

[Ivy Matt]

Despite M. Simon's obvious political bias as the lead item in this thread, I do not understand Jccarlton's comment at all. He is implying facts not in evidence. If you are going to air your opinion, please at least reference your conclusions, otherwise it is completely meaningless except as an indicator of your personal viewpoint.

For the record, I believe the article Jccarlton is referring to is this one here. Note especially the several sentences following the phrase "She pushed out Rahm...." Certainly it's open to interpretation, but the subsequent bin Laden raid does suggest one possible interpretation.

[D Tibbets]

Again Jcarlton uses the bludgeon that I an stupid or uninformed. Granted he did not use as abusive language this time.
I admit, I only glanced at the link provided at the begining of the thread. I reread it before my next post and found it to be even more irrelevant than I first thought.
The link provided about a comparison between the Obama administration and the George Orwell book "1984" was also read. It was again a diatribe with a few names thrown in to make it sound like there was actually careful comparisons. There was not any evidence to support the conclusions, only a list of names and the opinion that they were intent on taking over the world, so watch out. I commented that I thought that the comparison would more closely match the history of the Bush White House. Either comparison is highly subjective and worth little.

As far as Rush Limbaugh, I have listened to him off and on for over ~ 20 years. Admittedly less frequently now. The first few times I actually liked him and his points. But it did not take long for me to recognize his use of the mixing of reasonable truths on one hand with extremely inappropriate ideas/ conclusions (in my opinion) on the other. This lulling of the audience is a technique I have seen used by other commentators/ pundits , but I have the impression is that Limbaugh is a master of this technique.

Also, I read the link provided by Ivy Matt above. The article was mostly innuendo. The real or made up interviewee mostly admitted that "we" took heat after the White House long form birth cirtificate release, and wasn't Obama and staff nasty for doing that. They must obviously be trying to divert attention away from some other dire revelation that we are going to unearth any day now.... And that claim only shortly after the claim that the withholding of this legally meaningless document was due to trying to avoid a dire revealation.
I don't know the authenticity of the interview. It starts with a couple of Q & A's but that is soon dropped as the presumed interviewee continues on in his story and conclusions without further intervention by (what I suspect) is the imaginary interviewer. Another device to affirm and at the same time distance oneself from the facts and motives of conclusions.

eg: " Yes, I admit I hate him, but see- this is another's eyewitness account and conclusions, not mine."
There is a reason Hear- Say is frowned on in a court of law- there is no accountability.

They launch into a description of a possible interaction between several White House staff. then state that the confrontation was resolved. And that despite claims that both the first lady and president were involved, this resolution was achieved by the orders of some mysterious outside authority, and that this was clear indication that Oboma answers to this authority. This is completely silly. That there may have been some fireworks between staffers is interesting, but the subsequent conclusion about possible power within the white house is absolutely unsupported and represents only wild and possibly self serving speculation by the author and/ or interviewee.

Dan Tibbets

[Diogenes]

I stopped reading that link when it got into the "birther" part. Obama could of been born in China and he would of still been eligible, his mother is a US citizen therefor he is a natural born US citizen as are tens of thousands of military babies born all over the world.

You are simply wrong about this. The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation.

It was a created issue used to sling mud during the 2008 elections, and was cleverly used by the Obama administration to score political points recently. Anyone who tries to argue that he's not eligible is just trolling at this point in time.

It was not a "created" issue. It was a legitimate issue that was ignored and suppressed because everyone who works in the news and media service (with the exception of a few people at Fox News) is a Liberal Democrat who doesn't care about truth or loyalty to this nations founding principles. To The people that decide what gets on the news, Allegiance to this nation is no big deal.

Those articles are entirely too anti-Obama to actually be from an actual insider source. I mean seriously just follow the story and it breaks down into this "some great new political figure rose up and would shake the money tree so the powers that be shut him down, if only he was allowed to run the world would be full of pony's and rainbows". That is an old tried and true political tactic to manipulate people's emotions and sway them to your side. Trump dropped out because everyone would raid his financial records and business history looking for anything inappropriate and using it as mud against him. He's a successful businessman that virtually guarantee's he lied / stole / cheated at some point in time and just hasn't been caught yet, it comes with the territory. He decided his ongoing business relations where more important then a possible Presidential run. Instead of battling off enemies every day and having his life sucked out of him for the next 9 years he decided to maintain his kingly lifestyle and near omnipotent power base.

I find the "Ulsterman" articles to be highly suspicious, and while I cannot say with certainty that he is NOT a source inside the White House, I find it highly unlikely. I cannot conceive of a brown-shirt like White House (such as we have now) that would tolerate such a thing.

[palladin9479]

You are simply wrong about this. The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation.

And here is where I destroy your argument completely. Every year there are thousands of babies born at local hospitals near military bases around the world. Right here in South Korea (where I work) there are hundreds of families, many with mixed children between a US service member and a Korean local national. These children are all born on foreign soil to parents where only one member is a US citizen. Each and everyone one of these children are considered US citizens and eligible for the presidency.

Or are you trying to state that children born of military parents outside of the USA are not eligible to be native born US citizens? The Constitution doesn't mention anything about a "military" clause that gives any special treatment to military children. And to make your argument even more ridiculous, John McCain was born on a military base in Panama and therefor not on US soil.

The entire argument is null and void, Obama was born in Hawaii as attested to by the Republican Governor of Hawaii and the hospitals medical director. If anything it was McCain who should of had his eligibility questioned as his record clearly states it wasn't inside the USA. The Dems know that would be a ridiculous assertion. The GOP used the color of his skin, his muslim origin name and the fact that his father ran off and was from a different nation as political mud. This is a forum filled with individuals of rational thought and higher education. And while we may disagree on politics and go back and forth over points, we're all smart enough to realize the flawed logic and reasoning behind the whole "birther" incident. You are better then that.[/quote]

[TDPerk]

"The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation."

And if he had been born in China to an American traveling there, who'd brought him back in a few weeks or even a year--how would that create in him any allegiance to China?

[Diogenes]

You are simply wrong about this. The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation.

And here is where I destroy your argument completely.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Every year there are thousands of babies born at local hospitals near military bases around the world. Right here in South Korea (where I work) there are hundreds of families, many with mixed children between a US service member and a Korean local national. These children are all born on foreign soil to parents where only one member is a US citizen. Each and everyone one of these children are considered US citizens and eligible for the presidency.

If they are born to one American Parent, they will have American Citizenship, but they will not posses the ability to comply with Article II. The rule is NO DIVIDED LOYALTY. It's just that simple.

Or are you trying to state that children born of military parents outside of the USA are not eligible to be native born US citizens? The Constitution doesn't mention anything about a "military" clause that gives any special treatment to military children. And to make your argument even more ridiculous, John McCain was born on a military base in Panama and therefor not on US soil.

There are people that Believe the jus soli requirement is necessary. I am not one of those. I believe the jus sanguinis requirement is the only one that matters. Loyalty is not imparted by dirt. It is imparted by Loyal parents. As I have mentioned to others. If a man is in a foreign land doing the bidding of the nation that sent him, wherever he stands, THERE is America.

The entire argument is null and void, Obama was born in Hawaii as attested to by the Republican Governor of Hawaii and the hospitals medical director.

If you have a Hospital Medical director attesting to such a thing, I would very much like to know of it. All I have seen is image files of supposed documents in which NO ONE will attest that it is original, and therefore actual proof of a birth in Hawaii. The proof keeps coming down to "You can't see our documents, but take our word for it." It doesn't matter anyway. Loyalty is imparted by parents, not by dirt. Barack's supposed father is not American. He has no American Loyalty to impart, even had he stuck around.

If anything it was McCain who should of had his eligibility questioned as his record clearly states it wasn't inside the USA. The Dems know that would be a ridiculous assertion. The GOP used the color of his skin, his muslim origin name and the fact that his father ran off and was from a different nation as political mud. This is a forum filled with individuals of rational thought and higher education. And while we may disagree on politics and go back and forth over points, we're all smart enough to realize the flawed logic and reasoning behind the whole "birther" incident. You are better then that.

McCain's eligibility WAS questioned. The Senate held a hearing and "Declared" McCain to be a "Natural Born Citizen." Amusingly enough, Barack was one of the people who argued that because McCain had American Parents, he met the requirements.

The issue is legitimate. Never in History has this nation had a less American President than this one. If his documents are to be believed, his Presidency is a complete violation of Article II. You would do well to research this issue before you opine on it.

Should you chose to research this issue, Ignore the smoke screen of the various court decisions such as Perkins v. ELG, or Wong Kim Ark. None of them deal with Article II, and they are just a distraction. Go straight to the writings of the founders to find out what they meant and intended.

[Diogenes]

"The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation."

And if he had been born in China to an American traveling there, who'd brought him back in a few weeks or even a year--how would that create in him any allegiance to China?

It would not. One of the acts of the very first congress was to pass a law declaring that Children born to American parents (plural) over seas were in fact "natural born citizens." Here, let me quote the salient part for you.


Naturalization Act of 1790.
March 26, 1790.

. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Oh, look! It specifically forbids American Citizenship for the children of foreign fathers. Don't forget, the FIRST Congress was basically the same people that WROTE the constitution.

[rjaypeters]

Quote: "...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Did Barack Obama's father ever reside in the United States?

[Diogenes]

Quote: "...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

Did Barack Obama's father ever reside in the United States?

Not in the manner necessary. He was a transient Alien, nothing more.

[ladajo]

"The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation."

And if he had been born in China to an American traveling there, who'd brought him back in a few weeks or even a year--how would that create in him any allegiance to China?

It would not. One of the acts of the very first congress was to pass a law declaring that Children born to American parents (plural) over seas were in fact "natural born citizens." Here, let me quote the salient part for you.


Naturalization Act of 1790.
March 26, 1790.

. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Oh, look! It specifically forbids American Citizenship for the children of foreign fathers. Don't forget, the FIRST Congress was basically the same people that WROTE the constitution.

Yes and then later on, with both amendment and Supreme Court ruling, they reconize that the mother can pass down citizenship. You know I brought this up before and showed it to you. You then argued <seemingly> that the Supreme Court did not have the authority, and even as I recall at one point, nor did Congress.

I am ok that Obama derives his citizenship via his mother. It works for me, based on the research that I did and showed you.

[Diogenes]

"The entire purpose of Article II is to insure that the President has not even the slightest allegiance to any other nation."

And if he had been born in China to an American traveling there, who'd brought him back in a few weeks or even a year--how would that create in him any allegiance to China?

It would not. One of the acts of the very first congress was to pass a law declaring that Children born to American parents (plural) over seas were in fact "natural born citizens." Here, let me quote the salient part for you.


Naturalization Act of 1790.
March 26, 1790.

. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Oh, look! It specifically forbids American Citizenship for the children of foreign fathers. Don't forget, the FIRST Congress was basically the same people that WROTE the constitution.

Yes and then later on, with both amendment and Supreme Court ruling, they recognize that the mother can pass down citizenship. You know I brought this up before and showed it to you. You then argued <seemingly> that the Supreme Court did not have the authority, and even as I recall at one point, nor did Congress.

If that's what you remember from our previous discussion something obviously didn't translate properly. If I said anything about the Supreme Court in this regard it was more likely something to the effect that they can declare anything they want, but that doesn't make it true. Facts are imitable, even to the Supreme Court. (A philosophical point.) Pragmatically, the law blows whichever way the Supreme Court sneezes.

The intent of the founders is clear. The changes made in the 20th Century which in your mind justifies the passing of Natural born citizenship status through a single parent are in fact mis-applications of logic and law. Prior to 1920, Citizenship was controlled entirely by the Father's allegiance, because the woman was automatically the same citizenship as the Husband.

Separating the citizenship from marriage, allowed dual citizenship for children, (if one was not a citizen) and therefore is of ambiguous allegiance. The exact thing Article II was created to prevent.

I am ok that Obama derives his citizenship via his mother. It works for me, based on the research that I did and showed you.

Yeah, I couldn't follow your reasoning on that, so I just moved on. As I mentioned before, Separating the wife's citizenship from marriage was perceived as a gain for women's rights, but it wasn't done in consideration of the effect it would have on Divided Allegiance for offspring. (Of Consequence ONLY for Presidential Eligibility.)
What was not possible before (Offspring of Dual allegiances) and was never considered by the Founders, became a new wrinkle. The only CORRECT way to deal with it is to require both parents to have American citizenship independently of each other before the child is born. A condition which applies to the vast majority of Americans anyway.