• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Obama Birth Certificate Released

westprog said:
The rule may well be a stupid rule. However, if Obama really had been born in Kenya, and faked evidence, then it would be a very serious matter indeed, and should disqualify him from being president forthwith.

There are no bad consequences from him being born outside the country - but the potential consequences for him being born outside the country and concealing it would be potentially appalling. Consider the Watergate incident, where it was the coverup which did the damage, taking down an entire administration.

Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?

It doesn't matter a whit IMO whether Obama was born outside the US - except that there's a rule about it. That rule should be changed or obeyed. It can't be ignored.

Since there's never been any question about Obama being US born, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Of course your hypothetical assumes that HE knew about it and that HE concealed it.
 
westprog said:
The rule may well be a stupid rule. However, if Obama really had been born in Kenya, and faked evidence, then it would be a very serious matter indeed, and should disqualify him from being president forthwith.

There are no bad consequences from him being born outside the country - but the potential consequences for him being born outside the country and concealing it would be potentially appalling. Consider the Watergate incident, where it was the coverup which did the damage, taking down an entire administration.

Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?

It doesn't matter a whit IMO whether Obama was born outside the US - except that there's a rule about it. That rule should be changed or obeyed. It can't be ignored.

Since there's never been any question about Obama being US born, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Actually, the rule has nothing to say about actually being born in the US.

Two of my sisters were born in Australia. They are both US citizens - natural born ones, I might add, because at least one of their parents was a US citizen.
 
westprog said:
Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the plot of a cheap, poorly written, paperback novel.
 
Sorry, but the more I hear from conspiracy theorists the more I realise how many idiots there are in the world. Sigh.
 
Ausmerican said:
Of course your hypothetical assumes that HE knew about it and that HE concealed it.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Say he didn't know about it, was elected president and suddenly he was faced with the choice of resigning or doing some favour for somebody. The consequences would be potentially as bad even if he hadn't done anything wrong.

That's why, if you have the rule, it's important to be sure that the person was born in the USA. In Obama's case, we know this to be true. What I was disputing was the idea that if he wasn't, so what? If he wasn't, bad things can easily happen.
 
tim said:
Sorry, but the more I hear from conspiracy theorists the more I realise how many idiots there are in the world. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I assume you know the difference between a conspiracy theory and a hypothetical situation?
 
westprog said:
Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?
Click to expand...


It seems to me the organization with the greatest interest in finding such evidence would have been the Republican Party. With such evidence it could have eliminated one of its main rivals for the presidency in the 2008 election and made the Democratic Party look like fools for not checking the validity of one of its candidates.

Unless one wishes to assert that the Republicans wanted to lose the White House in 2008 and thus never dug into the background of its competition.
 
westprog said:
Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?
Click to expand...


Interesting scenario. I wonder what Halliburton was blackmailing Bush with in order to get away with what they did in Iraq.
 
Corsair 115 said:
It seems to me the organization with the greatest interest in finding such evidence would have been the Republican Party. With such evidence it could have eliminated one of its main rivals for the presidency in the 2008 election and made the Democratic Party look like fools for not checking the validity of one of its candidates.

Unless one wishes to assert that the Republicans wanted to lose the White House in 2008 and thus never dug into the background of its competition.
Click to expand...

The point here seems to be sailing by.

I already said that Obama had proven his birth in the USA long before the presidential election. What I was disputing was the suggestion that if he had actually had been born outside the USA, that it wouldn't have mattered. I said that while the rule might be foolish, it's still a rule, and if people think it's a bad rule, it should be changed, not ignored.

It's precisely because it's important to observe the rule that both parties ensure their candidates are born in the USA - which is what happened in the case of Obama.
 
hgc said:
Interesting scenario. I wonder what Halliburton was blackmailing Bush with in order to get away with what they did in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I think it was on the lines of "Psst? You want us to keep making those big donations?"
 
BenBurch said:
I need proof that randman is an American. He sounds like an enemy of the US, not a citizen.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I asked weeks ago for randman to provide us here with proof of his status as a natural-born U.S. citizen, yet he continues to dodge the issue. Why?

What is randman hiding??!!1!
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Good point.

I asked weeks ago for randman to provide us here with proof of his status as a natural-born U.S. citizen, yet he continues to dodge the issue. Why?

What is randman hiding??!!1!
Click to expand...

You're not doing this right. You've got to demand that he provide proof of his citizenship after he has already provided proof of his citizenship.

That's when it starts to get surreal and Birther-ish.
 
westprog said:
The rule may well be a stupid rule. However, if Obama really had been born in Kenya, and faked evidence, then it would be a very serious matter indeed, and should disqualify him from being president forthwith.

There are no bad consequences from him being born outside the country - but the potential consequences for him being born outside the country and concealing it would be potentially appalling. Consider the Watergate incident, where it was the coverup which did the damage, taking down an entire administration.

Imagine if Obama had been born overseas. Then the head of some major corporation finds unequivocal evidence about it. They meet with Obama and say that they'll destroy it in exchange for certain favours - being allowed to pollute, say, or provide sub-standard equipment to the military. Isn't that a potentially dangerous situation?

It doesn't matter a whit IMO whether Obama was born outside the US - except that there's a rule about it. That rule should be changed or obeyed. It can't be ignored.

Since there's never been any question about Obama being US born, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

So we obey the letter of the rule and not the intent of the rule.
 
Travis said:
So we obey the letter of the rule and not the intent of the rule.
Click to expand...

The intent of the rule is pretty clear. It's to stop people born overseas from being president. That happens to be the letter of the rule as well.

As a general point, it's not good for society to make up rules which sound good to somebody, but then not to implement them because they are impractical. It's a way to lead people into an ad hoc approach to the law in general. If the President doesn't need to obey the he law, why should anyone?
 
westprog said:
The intent of the rule is pretty clear. It's to stop people born overseas from being president. That happens to be the letter of the rule as well.
Click to expand...

That is neither the letter nor the intent of the rule. The intent of the rule was to try and prevent people who were loyal to the British crown infiltrating the US system of government and subverting the presidency.
The letter of the rule sates that no one who is not a US citizen at birth regardless of where they were born can be president.
The only reason that where Obama was born is relivant is that due to how young his mother was at the time she gave birth to him, and due to a loophole in the law at the time of his birth, she may not have automatically conferred citizenship to him if he had not been born on US soil.
If Obama's mother had been a few years older he would have been a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen) regardless of where he was born.
 
westprog said:
The intent of the rule is pretty clear. It's to stop people born overseas from being president. That happens to be the letter of the rule as well.

As a general point, it's not good for society to make up rules which sound good to somebody, but then not to implement them because they are impractical. It's a way to lead people into an ad hoc approach to the law in general. If the President doesn't need to obey the he law, why should anyone?
Click to expand...

Where does the letter of the law say that when a legal document is presented that demands for further not legal documents should be recognized.
:)
 
Dancing David said:
Where does the letter of the law say that when a legal document is presented that demands for further not legal documents should be recognized.
:)
Click to expand...

Where did I say any such thing?

I already said that Obama's American birth was comprehensively proven long before the election. What I was arguing with was the suggestion that this proof wasn't necessary or important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom