You got exactly what you wanted: your interpretation of NBC is sitting in the Oval Office.
Nowhere did I say this is what I wanted - fallacy on your part, and attempted smear as well. If you read my posts carefully, you'll note that and more besides about what I want for the next election. As Steel Wolf said, "I get that there's a lot of anti-American sentiment in Obama's past associations, but it's home grown American anti-Americanism."
you never did say what you thought about Obama’s rush to gayify the military. This is what you get with the son of a foreign enemy of the USA—the destruction of everything good about the country.) You should be pleased.
Garbage. Another attempted smear based on nothing. ("You didn't denounce X even though it had nothing to do with the main discussion point! therefore you support and love X!") Anything that diminishes the effectiveness of the military, negatively affects unit cohesion and morale is obviously a stupid idea and undermines the US. I am far from "pleased." Now cut the sideshow BS.
I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.
Fine. Go refute the list in post #170 for a start. Because that's the real issue here, that the Courts, various legislators, legal scholars, etc. have interpreted the Constitution that way, not your way.
Why are you in such a bad, angry mood?
I think that's you. I'm not the one wandering off the point, looking to pick fights and smear other posters about unrelated issues. The main issue is whether or not 0bama is ineligible (and if he is, so are Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal) because of your definition of NBC. The courts have not agreed with your definition. One point on this thread was whether Indonesian citizenship as a child means loss of US citizenship. The State Department clearly says "no." Now can you stick to the main issues, or does your screen name describe your posting style?
Yes, you did get what you want. You got a man who is the offspring of a foreigner. You are arguing that the right of foreigners—even America’s most virulent enemies—to father our presidents is what the NBC requirement is there to protect. Otherwise, it would exclude them by limiting that one office to the children of American citizens.
You’ve turned very nasty today. Change your tone; there is no justification for it. I posit that it is absurd on its face that the Founders put in the NBC requirement to protect King George’s right to father a future POTUS. You defend that position. When I point that out, you attack me. That is truly nasty and repugnant behavior; knock it off.