53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history.
He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the
9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is,
an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you
do with his running mate?

Prove he wasn't born in Hawaii, dipschitt. And who really cares if the
right-wing dipschitts are "up in arms" over this, anyway?

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy
of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout
of the information stored in an electronic database.


I doubt Obama gives a schitt about what you want in his certificate of
live birth.

He seems to give a crap about what most of us want. But he is a great
orator from the telepromter.

53-42
 

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:02:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...



I don't know of one reason why the Obama campaign should expend energy to
satisfy the curiosity of those who would not vote for him under any
circumstances. If some rightie has *proof* Obama was not born in Hawaii,
let him come forward with it. Proof, mind you, not speculation.


Isn't that cavalier attitude representative of the complaints many have of
GWB?

The guy is soliciting votes to be elected POTUS. To request documentation
proving his Constitutional eligibility to hold that office isn't asking much
and should be done as a matter of course in a basic background check. Obama
did not respond, causing some legitimate questions. Even his family members
have offered conflicting accounts of his place of birth. Add to that his
refusal to release college records and transcripts further begs questions.

It is my understanding that the "birth certificate" electronically posted on
the Obama website is suspect by many experts. Why not produce and submit a
certified original or copy to a judge?

Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court system to
dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents. That's scary to me. The
liberal media has put this issue in a filing cabinet, preferring to focus
more on proving that Sarah Palin can't see Russia from her house.

I just want some honesty. At least McCain has released all requested
documents, warts and all.


Again, to me, it's the sum of the details about Obama that leaves me
questioning who the heck he really is.

Eisboch





Isn't it nice to be excluded from the dip**** right wingers?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.


But, agree or not, the Constitution requires one to be a naturally born
citizen.
If a question of eligibility arises due to conflicting family
recollections that are made public, how else does one satisfy the law?

The Duck provided a link that offers convincing proof. Why did Obama
make this all so difficult and controversial?
Also, as one of his potential employers (heh), I'd really like to review
his college transcripts. Any problem with that?

I know if I refused if asked, I wouldn't get the job.


Eisboch


Apparently, the framers of the Constitution provided no mechanism for
office seekers to prove their country of birth. I wonder why.



You have to wonder? To me, it is perfectly clear.

I had and have serious questions in 2000 about the intellectual
capabilities of George W. Bush. My doubts about him have proved to be
valid.

Some of us have serious questions in 2008 about the honesty and motives of
Barack Obama and his political machine.
Hopefully, our concerns will prove to be unwarranted.

Problem is, there is a lot more at stake here in 2008 than there was in
2000.

Eisboch
I had a test I thought should be applied to any potential nominee for
President. I thought he or she should have to read aloud a full page
chosen at random from a novel by Melville or even by Dickens. If Bush had
had to do that, he would have lost to Gore and this country wouldn't be
sliding to hell in a handbasket right now.

53-42
 

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

I don't know of one reason why the Obama campaign should expend
energy to satisfy the curiosity of those who would not vote for him
under any circumstances. If some rightie has *proof* Obama was not
born in Hawaii, let him come forward with it. Proof, mind you, not
speculation.


Isn't that cavalier attitude representative of the complaints many
have of GWB?

The guy is soliciting votes to be elected POTUS. To request
documentation proving his Constitutional eligibility to hold that
office isn't asking much and should be done as a matter of course in a
basic background check. Obama did not respond, causing some
legitimate questions. Even his family members have offered
conflicting accounts of his place of birth. Add to that his refusal
to release college records and transcripts further begs questions.

It is my understanding that the "birth certificate" electronically
posted on the Obama website is suspect by many experts. Why not
produce and submit a certified original or copy to a judge?

Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court
system to dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents. That's scary
to me. The liberal media has put this issue in a filing cabinet,
preferring to focus more on proving that Sarah Palin can't see Russia
from her house.

I just want some honesty. At least McCain has released all requested
documents, warts and all.


Again, to me, it's the sum of the details about Obama that leaves me
questioning who the heck he really is.

Eisboch






Once again, unless it is legally required, I see no reason to satisfy
the curiosity of those who will not be voting for Obama, no matter what.

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

Beyond this discussion, the "born in the USA" requirement is a stupid
one, anyway. Any citizen, born here or naturalized, should be allowed to
seek this nation's highest elected offices. A lot of voters at one time
wanted to see "the Arnold" run for the nomination but, of course, he
could not because of an "accident" of birth. No one questions his
loyalty and devotion to this country. I wouldn't have voted for the guy,
but I sure would have supported measures to make it possible for him to
run.

If you feel that way there is a method to get the Constitution changed.
Let us know how you make out. Or, are you just passing gas orally again.

53-42
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


So far this one has convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html



Yup. It could have been so simple.

Eisboch

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.


I think the Annenberg folks are a non-partisan group and they seem convinced
that they have seen, touched and photographed a *certified* copy (NOT the
original) of Obama's birth record. a certified copy in this format is
accepted by the State Department for passport purposes.

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined
and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets
all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are
false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as
"supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in
the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html


The following photos are linked on the above page:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_7.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_1.jpg

53-42
 

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.


But, agree or not, the Constitution requires one to be a naturally
born citizen.
If a question of eligibility arises due to conflicting family
recollections that are made public, how else does one satisfy the law?

The Duck provided a link that offers convincing proof. Why did Obama
make this all so difficult and controversial?
Also, as one of his potential employers (heh), I'd really like to
review his college transcripts. Any problem with that?

I know if I refused if asked, I wouldn't get the job.


Eisboch



Apparently, the framers of the Constitution provided no mechanism for
office seekers to prove their country of birth. I wonder why.

I had and have serious questions in 2000 about the intellectual
capabilities of George W. Bush. My doubts about him have proved to be
valid.

There is no Constitutional requirement that the President have an IQ
above his shoe size.

I had a test I thought should be applied to any potential nominee for
President. I thought he or she should have to read aloud a full page
chosen at random from a novel by Melville or even by Dickens. If Bush
had had to do that, he would have lost to Gore and this country wouldn't
be sliding to hell in a handbasket right now.

Three is a method to get the Constitution changed. Let us know how you
make out.

53-42
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


So far this one has convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html



Yup. It could have been so simple.

Eisboch

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law (and that's all that matters
here) the document referenced in Duck's post satisfies the requirement of
a challenge to his natural born status.

It's too bad my wife and I had to fight tooth and nail to get "proof" that
our oldest son was a citizen of the USA, even though born overseas while I
was serving active duty in the military. Requests for help to resolve this
issue to our local, "veteran sensitive" United States Senator John Kerry
went totally unanswered.

BTW .... he may be facing a serious challenge to his 24 year "career" in the
Senate on Tuesday.
I hope like hell the voters give him the bum's rush out the door.

Eisboch

53-42
 

BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation
you want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

53-42
 

Eisboch wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

So far this one has convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html


Yup. It could have been so simple.

Eisboch

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law (and that's all that matters
here) the document referenced in Duck's post satisfies the requirement of
a challenge to his natural born status.

It's too bad my wife and I had to fight tooth and nail to get "proof" that
our oldest son was a citizen of the USA, even though born overseas while I
was serving active duty in the military. Requests for help to resolve this
issue to our local, "veteran sensitive" United States Senator John Kerry
went totally unanswered.

BTW .... he may be facing a serious challenge to his 24 year "career" in the
Senate on Tuesday.
I hope like hell the voters give him the bum's rush out the door.

Eisboch




Kerry has a 30-point lead in the average polls on that race. Is that a
serious challenge?

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of the
US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied requirement
that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?



Common sense.

It's an old concept that has been falling out of favor.

Eisboch