Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[timhau]

Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton.

Now isn't that a mystery. Everyone knows that postal workers in general and black postal workers in particular never have bright kids.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Now isn't that a mystery. Everyone knows that postal workers in general and black postal workers in particular never have bright kids.

now, now, don't be mean to BeaChooser.

Do NOT alter other members' names in order to insult them.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Another quote

Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).

Smack!!!!

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I have never gotten the deal with birthers and freakin' de Vattel. No body really mentions him or his philosophy, and all the colonies used English common law; but somehow he is supposedly more important than over 200 years of American jurisprudence?

 

[cwalner]

...at which I'm sure she's just as competent.

Hmm, I need to have a a medical procedure which involves drugging me to make me docile while somebody uses a power tool in my mouth.

My two choices are somebody I know nothing about or some deranged woman who despite repeatedy failing to show she has standing still insists on harrasing our legal system to remove a sitting president from office.

What was that other doctor's name, the guy I Know nothing about? Kevorkian. Sounds great, I'll go with him.

 

[dudalb]

Indeed, the emperor Xanu might have something to say on the matter.

Hell, I want to hear what Great Cthuluhu comments will be.......

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So I've confused pride with anything I haven't mentioned?

Yes.

So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc?

I would be like asking if you are proud of an experience you had with a prostitute.

I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences.

You may have loved it, especially for the money you paid, but you are most likely not proud of it (in the traditional sense).

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[BeAChooser]

You can respond in another thread if you wish to continue this discussion that you started with the derail about Michelle Obama, which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

Yawn.

 

[Juniversal]

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

But that's the problem. The evidence isn't valid and the Birthers ARE nuts.

 

[CptColumbo]

So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc?

Well, I don't know about that, but you apparently don't know the definition of pride. Yet you are trying to prove if someone had it, which is pointless.

I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences.

So, you never had an experience with a prostitute that you felt pride about? Well that was my point, you may have loved it, but you never felt pride about it.

Are you speaking from experience?

No, I've never seen you with a prostitute. Watching isn't my thing.

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

The evidence of which you failed to provide. So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct?

 

[Meadmaker]

So, now that you've "stirred the pot" BaC, I have to ask whether you believe this drivel. Do you think it likely that Obama's parents were not married at the time of his birth, and do you think that the answer is somehow relevant to his status as a natural born citizen or his eligibility for the presidency? The other possibility is that your comments are pure trolling.

Either way it's worthy of ridicule, but what sort of ridicule?

 

[Paulhoff]

News Flash, President Obama changes his name to John Smith, birthers are found stun and without a cause walking the streets, seeing that now he sounds so American. On another note, a new group called the slavers has found that Hawaii has never had a law freeing the slaves, News at 11:00.

Paul

 

[BeAChooser]

So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct?

I didn't know forum rules required that one have proof of something before claiming it or commenting on it during discussions of a topic.

If that's the case, that rule has certainly been abused by the Bush haters and Obama lovers who dominate this forum.

 

[Sabrina]

One wonders what that word was.....

*cough*DESERTER*cough*

Just a guess.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

*cough*DESERTER*cough*

Just a guess.

Or Blue Falcon, or Buddy (rule 10); or at least of good number of words my family would use to describe soldiers who think personal politics are a reason to refuse orders.

 

[CptColumbo]

I didn't know forum rules required that one have proof of something before claiming it or commenting on it during discussions of a topic.

When you found that you were making no head way with attacking the President of the United States you started derailing the tread by attacking the First Lady. I can only assume it was because you had exhausted all attempts to further your points on the topic and only wanted to find another way to attack the man elected by a majority of the voting public. Since you have nothing further to add on the subject of the thread, or at least haven't done so, I would guess you're done here, much like the OP.

If that's the case, that rule has certainly been abused by the Bush haters and Obama lovers who dominate this forum.

So there are only the two extremes. You either love the President of hate him (either of them). There is no way someone might defend a person (any person) from an unfair and unprovoked attack on his/her character, simply because it is the right thing to do.

 

[BeAChooser]

When you found that you were making no head way with attacking the President of the United States you started derailing the tread by attacking the First Lady.

I made no attack on the first lady. I simply reported what she said and verifiable facts about her life. Times must be tough when quoting what a person says and citing facts about their life is viewed as an attack.

I can only assume it was because you had exhausted all attempts to further your points on the topic

Really? Here, try this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

... snip ...

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Curious.

And even more curious is that Wikipedia responded by removing the names of Carter's clerks from it's pages.

And by the way. ... did you actually look at the ruling? Essentially it boils down to this:

The court says Obama's eligibility should be resolved by Congress.

Congress says this issue should be resolved by the court.

So it's a Catch 22.

 

[Arus808]

ah more twisting of the truth on WND's part. they have to accuse everyone under the sun to make their "conspiracy" and rumor mongering work.

By the way, congress made no such claim. Presidential eligibility will always and forever be handled by the Electoral College and Congress.

 

[CptColumbo]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411
Curious.

And even more curious is that Wikipedia responded by removing the names of Carter's clerks from it's pages.

And by the way. ... did you actually look at the ruling? Essentially it boils down to this:

The court says Obama's eligibility should be resolved by Congress.

Congress says this issue should be resolved by the court.

So it's a Catch 22.

So, if true (and I don't see any source for the story (other than "A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers)), they are suggesting that he hired a clerk who worked at a law firm. How is that a conflict?

The judge didn't really get anything out the hiring, except a law clerk with experience.

Now if the law firm paid the clerks salary and threw in a massage therapist, then there might a issue. Otherwise, so what?

BTW it is the job of the Congress to unseat a President.