|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 2, 2009 11:03:50 GMT -8
Where do you get your facts on where "birther folks" are from? One of the leaders is a woman originally from Russia. =Bob That does not answer the question. I know that most are Conservative and Patriots, but only left wing sources say anything about lots being from the South. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 2, 2009 16:57:27 GMT -8
One of the leaders is a woman originally from Russia. =Bob That does not answer the question. I know that most are Conservative and Patriots, but only left wing sources say anything about lots being from the South. Pooh, the fact that you are using laden terms such as "patriots" tells me that you are trolling. Take it to one of the right-wingnut forums instead of continuing to bother us with this racist crap. Polls show that the South believes this nonsense more than any other section of the country. I'm sorry that you do not understand that. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2009 10:47:05 GMT -8
That does not answer the question. I know that most are Conservative and Patriots, but only left wing sources say anything about lots being from the South. Pooh, the fact that you are using laden terms such as "patriots" tells me that you are trolling. Take it to one of the right-wingnut forums instead of continuing to bother us with this racist crap. Polls show that the South believes this nonsense more than any other section of the country. I'm sorry that you do not understand that. =Bob What polls? Link? What is wrong with pointing out the difference between a Patriot and a liberal? Some folks don't even know there is a difference!  |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 3, 2009 12:05:31 GMT -8
Pooh, the fact that you are using laden terms such as "patriots" tells me that you are trolling. Take it to one of the right-wingnut forums instead of continuing to bother us with this racist crap. Polls show that the South believes this nonsense more than any other section of the country. I'm sorry that you do not understand that. =Bob What polls? Link? What is wrong with pointing out the difference between a Patriot and a liberal? Some folks don't even know there is a difference! Are you trying to say that if you are a liberal you cannot be a patriot? If you are you are treading on very dangerous ground. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2009 13:21:34 GMT -8
What polls? Link? What is wrong with pointing out the difference between a Patriot and a liberal? Some folks don't even know there is a difference! Are you trying to say that if you are a liberal you cannot be a patriot? If you are you are treading on very dangerous ground. Not impossible I guess, but I was just trying to ask Bob the question. I have heard people think there is some virtuous quality about Madonna. I can't imagine what or where the danger would be. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 3, 2009 15:31:30 GMT -8
Are you trying to say that if you are a liberal you cannot be a patriot? If you are you are treading on very dangerous ground. Not impossible I guess, but I was just trying to ask Bob the question. I have heard people think there is some virtuous quality about Madonna. And I won't answer it because you've been too obvious with the original statement and your question. Really Pooh; I'm beginning to think you're getting old because of sad trolls like that. I know it's Summer and you're mostly interested in being on the first tee early in the morning so you can have your margaritas before lunch, but I mean really.... =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 3, 2009 15:36:42 GMT -8
I'm surprised you haven't bought into the ridiculous forgery of a Kenyan birth certificate that the wingnuts are offering on the net. Oh well, maybe you haven't seen it yet. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 4, 2009 4:10:55 GMT -8
I'm surprised you haven't bought into the ridiculous forgery of a Kenyan birth certificate that the wingnuts are offering on the net. Oh well, maybe you haven't seen it yet. =Bob I have seen it and say that it is just one more reason for Obama to show his long form birth certificate. Here is some more. starturl.com/loudobbsright Did you see where the Secret Service says Obama can't quit smoking? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 4, 2009 17:12:20 GMT -8
I'm surprised you haven't bought into the ridiculous forgery of a Kenyan birth certificate that the wingnuts are offering on the net. Oh well, maybe you haven't seen it yet. =Bob I have seen it and say that it is just one more reason for Obama to show his long form birth certificate. Here is some more. starturl.com/loudobbsright Did you see where the Secret Service says Obama can't quit smoking? No, but I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do a report, if they had the time, on why you can't stop trolling. I mean really, Pooh. You've become so obvious on this subject that I really have no reason to bother responding to you any longer. Jeez, offering Lou Dobbs as a source? How pathetic is that? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 5, 2009 12:29:39 GMT -8
I have seen it and say that it is just one more reason for Obama to show his long form birth certificate. Here is some more. starturl.com/loudobbsright Did you see where the Secret Service says Obama can't quit smoking? No, but I'm sure they'd be more than happy to do a report, if they had the time, on why you can't stop trolling. I mean really, Pooh. You've become so obvious on this subject that I really have no reason to bother responding to you any longer. Jeez, offering Lou Dobbs as a source? How pathetic is that? =Bob Dobbs as a source? Perhaps you need to review what this is mostly about. Why won't Obama reveal his long form birth certificate and put a rest to all of this. That is what Dobbs is asking. I know you appear to be pretty thick, but something as simple as that should get through somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 5, 2009 16:04:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 6, 2009 4:45:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 10:39:09 GMT -8
That's an easy one to answer. Obama does not release the long form certificate (assuming that one exists) because not doing so just inflames the Birthers even more. And that is just the way Obama wants it. He is only too happy to allow his pals in the media to focus on them (the Birthers) since doing so tends to hurt the GOP. (Of course, if the Pres. did produce his long form birth certificate, the Birthers might just say it's a fraud and continue their ranting.) So far as I know, no prominent Republican officer holder (that would include people such as the head of the RNC) has done anything other than distance themselves from this claim. But the media does not draw a distinction between Jim DeMint, David Dreier, Michael Steele on the one hand and the certifiable nut-cases on the other. In fact, the media (and certainly the Democrats) generally lump Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in with the actual GOP office holders and party functionaries. All this works to delegitimize the Republican Party. Hey, it's politics, and politics is not a non-contact sport. AzWm PS: I can now reveal that I am a "boater." A boater is one who is still angry that Sen. John Kerry has never released his entire military service record! What is the guy trying to hide? And, though I offer this little tidbit of information in a humorous vein, the truth is that Kerry never DID release his record. My only conclusion is that there is something in that record that might have reflected badly on him, even if only in a small way. (On the other hand, I'm not sure if any questionable item in his service record could have hurt him worse than he hurt himself just about any time he opened his mouth! ) |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 6, 2009 12:42:23 GMT -8
So far as I know, no prominent Republican officer holder (that would include people such as the head of the RNC) has done anything other than distance themselves from this claim. But the media does not draw a distinction between Jim DeMint, David Dreier, Michael Steele on the one hand and the certifiable nut-cases on the other. In fact, the media (and certainly the Democrats) generally lump Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in with the actual GOP office holders and party functionaries. That's due to two things. First, there is no real "leader" of the party right now because the party is out of office. But the other reason is that given that situation and the amount of influence Limbaugh and others carry within the party, they have become de facto "leaders". =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 6, 2009 12:53:44 GMT -8
So far as I know, no prominent Republican officer holder (that would include people such as the head of the RNC) has done anything other than distance themselves from this claim. But the media does not draw a distinction between Jim DeMint, David Dreier, Michael Steele on the one hand and the certifiable nut-cases on the other. In fact, the media (and certainly the Democrats) generally lump Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity in with the actual GOP office holders and party functionaries. That's due to two things. First, there is no real "leader" of the party right now because the party is out of office. But the other reason is that given that situation and the amount of influence Limbaugh and others carry within the party, they have become de facto "leaders". =Bob In other words, nature abhors a vacuum. The talk show hosts, Fox News, etc., have greater influence since the GOP is so weak overall. There is something to that, of course. Still, the fact that there is no GOP President, Speaker of the House, etc., does not mean that an entertainer, no matter how popular or close philosophically to the party he may be, is therefore that party's leader. Such an obvious fact will not, of course, prevent the opponents of the Republican Party from trying to proclaim Rush, Sean, etc., party leaders. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2009 4:22:06 GMT -8
Is this the answer? Is it more than just the birth certificate? Is the fact that both parents were not US citizens the real issue? Someone has found this document on Scribd and thought you should check it out. Link to Document: www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen?from_email_04_friend_send=1Title: "The Conclusive Definition of Natural Born Citizen" Description: Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Aug 10, 2009 7:57:01 GMT -8
Is this the answer? Is it more than just the birth certificate? Is the fact that both parents were not US citizens the real issue? Someone has found this document on Scribd and thought you should check it out. Link to Document: www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen?from_email_04_friend_send=1Title: "The Conclusive Definition of Natural Born Citizen" Description: Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child. Good try. Too bad that 1) The Constitution does not define what a "Natural Born Citizen" really means, nor has the Supreme Court ever defined it too. 2) Whoever wrote your quote has really skewed the facts. In the 1800's, the Supreme Court ruled that any person born in the United States is a citizen no matter the citizenship of his parents. Why do you think there are 'anchor babies'? Also the court has also ruled that as long as one parent is a citizen and has lived in the country for x number of years then the child is a citizen. Win, even if Obama was not born in the U.S. He is still a citizen. That is unless you are now saying that his mother wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 10, 2009 10:03:40 GMT -8
Is this the answer? Is it more than just the birth certificate? Is the fact that both parents were not US citizens the real issue? Someone has found this document on Scribd and thought you should check it out. Link to Document: www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusive-Definition-of-Natural-Born-Citizen?from_email_04_friend_send=1Title: "The Conclusive Definition of Natural Born Citizen" Description: Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child. Good try. Too bad that 1) The Constitution does not define what a "Natural Born Citizen" really means, nor has the Supreme Court ever defined it too. 2) Whoever wrote your quote has really skewed the facts. In the 1800's, the Supreme Court ruled that any person born in the United States is a citizen no matter the citizenship of his parents. Why do you think there are 'anchor babies'? Also the court has also ruled that as long as one parent is a citizen and has lived in the country for x number of years then the child is a citizen. Win, even if Obama was not born in the U.S. He is still a citizen. That is unless you are now saying that his mother wasn't. I think that you are right on all counts but one. Would not his mother have needed to be 18 if he was born in Kenya? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 11, 2009 16:34:10 GMT -8
Duke, the problem with all of this is that the Supremes have never really decided what the definition of "natural born" is (note that I use your formal name, which means I'm serious about this).
The law that was in force when Obama was born was rather ridiculous. His mother was born in this country to two people born in this country and that should be enough. I don't know how that interpretation of the Constitution came into being but it was nonsense and it has been changed.
If you'd like to take this thread to a higher level instead of just trolling, how's about we discuss the Constitution and what would be the best way to deal with a really vague requirement for "natural born"?
It seems to me that this is a perfect example of why the Constitution should be seen as a living document. There was no way in Hell our Founding Fathers could have foreseen the immigration waves that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Christ, it took them 3 months to travel from East Coast ports to English and French ports. And let's face it; at the time they were dealing with 13 colonies on the Eastern Seaboard and had no clue that one day millions of Latinos would be looking to come here for jobs, not to mention the massive immigrant waves that came from Eastern Europe back in the day.
Until such time as the Supremes rule on it, I don't see a result that is other than people claiming that they've got the "truth" about how that vague Constitutional codicil can be defined.
But maybe our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that the Constitution should be a living document that changed over time and maybe they put the Supremes in there to make sure it is.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2009 10:39:01 GMT -8
|
|
