Donald Trump joins birthers!

#26
#26
CSVol said:
Do you honestly belive:

1. The powers that be, e.g. the US Supreme Court, haven't been provided with proof of citizenship. If so, you're basically saying they just said 'meh, if the guy wants to run, let him run.' You cannot believe just anyone can run without proper documentation.
Click to expand...
Where does SCOTUS have the opportunity much less the obligation to check birth certificates?

Yes. I am pretty sure that anyone can run without providing birth documents. As far as I know, the only office with that qualification is unique to the President so it isn't like it has come up very often.
2. That if there was anything even resembling impropriety the Clinton camp wouldn't have run with it. They are a master political machine and lack of proper documentation would have been the gift that kept on giving during the primaries.
Click to expand...
They are master politicians. As such, they may have determined that it would have hurt them in the long run to win by disqualifying Obama.

Let. It. Go.
Click to expand...

One, I sometimes comment when it comes up but almost never bring it up here or anywhere else. If a document is ever demanded, the Chicago machine will make sure it passes.

Two, it is important regardless of what anyone might say. Rule of law is vital if we are going to maintain any degree of rights and freedoms.
 
#27
#27
therealUT said:
The entire thought process behind "the rule of law" is ridiculous, insulting, and hearkens back to the 17th and 18th century bourgeousie and their demands to have the towns sanitized of "delinquents and vagabonds".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Ridiculous... and very dangerous statement. Rule of law is PREREQUISITE for justice, rights, and freedom. Unless you are delusional enough to believe that we can find much less elect people so morally good and devoid of selfish motives that they will rule with consistent justice, you MUST have rule of law.

You have just provided a glimpse into the liberal mind though. Many liberals deny that they oppose rule of law... you appear to relish in it.
 
#29
#29
sjt18 said:
BTW, what exactly do you think that "process" is?
Click to expand...

The thought process behind the rule of law is thus:

Because it is legislated, it must be right as well as obeyed.

Rights and liberties have been abused often simply due to the fact that "good-citizens" will buy in to the "rule of law".

Ironically, Jesus was a pariah because he did not respect law simply for th sake of law, and he seems to be your god...right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#30
#30
I've always thought the birth law was a little ridiculous. There are plenty of immigrants that have come here and done more good for this country than a good portion of the citizens that were born here. I would vote for someone that wasn't born here (but has acquired citizenship).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
sjt18 said:
Where does SCOTUS have the opportunity much less the obligation to check birth certificates?
Who determines who qualifies? Congress? Anybody?

Yes. I am pretty sure that anyone can run without providing birth documents. As far as I know, the only office with that qualification is unique to the President so it isn't like it has come up very often.
If no documentation is needed (wonder why qualifications are listed in the constitution) then why is it now such an issue?

They are master politicians. As such, they may have determined that it would have hurt them in the long run to win by disqualifying Obama.
How so?
Click to expand...
If I recall from civics class, all federally elected posts, e.g. Senator, Congressman, etc, have qualifications.
 
#32
#32
CSVol said:
Do you honestly belive:

1. The powers that be, e.g. the US Supreme Court, haven't been provided with proof of citizenship. If so, you're basically saying they just said 'meh, if the guy wants to run, let him run.' You cannot believe just anyone can run without proper documentation.

2. That if there was anything even resembling impropriety the Clinton camp wouldn't have run with it. They are a master political machine and lack of proper documentation would have been the gift that kept on giving during the primaries.

Let. It. Go.
Click to expand...

so you think the USSC is above looking the other way on this matter, but somehow, I'm willing to bet that you believe they were dishonest enough in the past to steal an election for Bush, right? lulz!!
 
#33
#33
kev20 said:
so you think the USSC is above looking the other way on this matter, but somehow, I'm willing to bet that you believe they were dishonest enough in the past to steal an election for Bush, right? lulz!!
Click to expand...

So your saying that BO got by w/out documentation b/c the SC did steal the election from Gore?
 
#34
#34
CSVol said:
So your saying that BO got by w/out documentation b/c the SC did steal the election from Gore?
Click to expand...

not what I said at all. I don't subscribe to the birthers theory. was just looking for the logic of why they would be above letting this slide since you obviously think they are dishonest enough for what you claim.
 
#35
#35
oklavol said:
obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif


It's in the constitution that the U.S. President must be born in the United States.
He had to submit a ceritificate of live birth in order to run for the Presidency.
If they were able to confirm it how do you get around that?
They would have been able to determine if it was a forged document.

Obama's birth was in both of Hawaii's newspapers in 1961.
Click to expand...

How do the birthers explain the newspapers? Time travel?
 
#37
#37
therealUT said:
I'm not a birther; however, I could have a child in Europe and the birth could still be announced in my hometown newspaper.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So Mrs. Obama called from Kenya and had them run the ad? In two papers? Remember, her family is from Kansas.
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
I'm not a birther; however, I could have a child in Europe and the birth could still be announced in my hometown newspaper.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

9 days after the birth? That's unpossible

not saying I buy into this but the paper proves nothing. I believe mine was in 2 different papers
 
#39
#39
utvolpj said:
9 days after the birth? That's unpossible

not saying I buy into this but the paper proves nothing. I believe mine was in 2 different papers
Click to expand...

2 different papers on a particular island in the middle of the Pacific, when your parents are from Kansas and Kenya?
 
#40
#40
IPorange said:
2 different papers on a particular island in the middle of the Pacific, when your parents are from Kansas and Kenya?
Click to expand...

why does the location matter? Weren't they living in Hawaii? I don't believe there's a limit on where they can print an announcement
 
#41
#41
IPorange said:
2 different papers on a particular island in the middle of the Pacific, when your parents are from Kansas and Kenya?
Click to expand...

i think this points there to being something else on his birth certificate that he doesn't want people to see.
 
#44
#44
IPorange said:
So Mrs. Obama called from Kenya and had them run the ad? In two papers? Remember, her family is from Kansas.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that a newspaper is not an official government document establishing location and/or date of birth.

I could care less. I would rather have Obama than McCain. However, I do believe that Obama has not helped his cause in this discussion by simply laughing at and making jokes about those who demand harder proof.

I did read a week or two ago that the USSC is going to have a panel review of the situation, though. I believe the article was in the Huffington Post (not exactly a bastion of "birthers"). The writer discussed some of the potential implicatiojns and consequences if Obama is deemed "unqualified", most of these hinged on court appointments.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#45
#45
droski said:
is the address her parents address?
Click to expand...

don't know, but I'm pretty sure her parents lived in Hawaii at the time of Barry's birth. If not, then meh. I'm not a birther either, he's unqualified in too many other, substantive ways.
 
#46
#46
kev20 said:
not what I said at all. I don't subscribe to the birthers theory. was just looking for the logic of why they would be above letting this slide since you obviously think they are dishonest enough for what you claim.
Click to expand...

I must be missing something. I asked sjt18 if he thought the USSC hadn't been provided proof of citizenship. How in any way does this lead you to believe I thought they were dishonest? What was my claim of which you speak? In plainer terms, what are you talking about?
 
#47
#47
I was just going on a hunch that you were probably in the crowd that thought the SC stole the election from Gore. was just wondering why, if you were of that belief, you would have such a hard time accepting the possibility that looking the other way on some documents was beneath them.
 
#48
#48
kev20 said:
I was just going on a hunch that you were probably in the crowd that thought the SC stole the election from Gore. was just wondering why, if you were of that belief, you would have such a hard time accepting the possibility that looking the other way on some documents was beneath them.
Click to expand...

So basically you just skim posts and talk smack. Cool.
 
#50
#50
kev20 said:
so you think the USSC is above looking the other way on this matter, but somehow, I'm willing to bet that you believe they were dishonest enough in the past to steal an election for Bush, right? lulz!!
Click to expand...
.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top