THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[shagdrum]

Hahahaha, what a crying little liar, all this over me saying "conspiracy seeker", oh no, man-up and let it go.

If you're going to put me on ignore, do stop talking about me.

Ok, consider yourself removed. I will continue to expose you as the dishonest, condesending @$$hole you truely are. Apparently the admins allow for incivility here. , and I have a very big problem with letting that crap stand.

I am not a "Crying little liar" as you put it. If you are going to make that claim, then provide examples. Where have I lied? Yet another smear from you it seems. Cite examples or STFU!

Unlike you, I expect a level of honesty, respectfulness and civility when I debate someone. It is rather clear that you cannot maintain that. You start out being uncivil and insulting by attempting to marginalize people, and when called on it you get worse. That is a habit that a number of people demonstrate on this forum rather consistently, but you are the worst.

That demonstratably shows a complete lack of integrity and a huge character flaw. But that is the MO of the left; to avoid substantive debate by marginalizing, smearing, distorting and obfuscating; so it is not too suprising that you use that. But it is appalling.

How about, for once in your life you stop being an @$$ to people you disagree with, act civil and actually use your brain? You might find you have been wrong about a few things, and maybe actually be able to convince someone that they have too. You cannot convince anyone by trying to verbally and rhetorically bullying them to your point of view. All you do is demonstrate how much of a jerk you are.

I don't like being uncivil, but apparently a number of people have no decency on this forum and chastise those who try to maintain som level of civility. If you allow incivility the, in the end, all you have to do against someone who actually tries to maintain some standard of decency is become more of an @$$ and eventually cause them to walk away, then claim victory. There is no chance of any productive debate then.

Thomas Sowell said the following in this article which also applies on a personal level:

When the majority of the people become like sheep, who will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go​

Clearly, you are someone who doesn't even flinch at the idea of sacrificing decency, integrity and honesty (among other things) to win an argument. To let that go is to perpetuate that behavior and reward it on this forum.

 

[TheDude]

All the silly little claims about me, those would be the lies, obviously. You continue still.

It's rather simple, YOU made a claim; then danced around the question which asked you to substantiated said claim, this caused you to start slinging the "dishonest", "smearing" etc. claims about me; it's not hard to tell you used these tactics to distract away that YOU made a claim and then couldn't support it.

As far as me insulting you, I said "conspiracy seeker" and I directly called you a "clown-shoe", this was after you started making those lie-smears against me. If you dish it out, be man enough to take it, all I ask.

The funniest part, I didn't allow you to turn the conversation away from you not being able to directly answer a simple question, which is why you put me on ignore (or at least claimed to) and then continued to lie about me/insult me. Very poor form there, if you're going to cry about ignoring me, then don't mention me any further.

Here's a little quote in return: “For one to expect or ask things of others that he himself, if asked, would not be willing to do or give, is the worst kind of arrogance.” -Anthony Beal

Anyhow, I'd still like your [valid] response to 'who should Obama turn his COLB into?', as no one is asking for it. Your claim of 'this would all be over if Obama would just turn over his birth certificate', implies he's withholding it for questionable reasons.

 

[shagdrum]

i did read through them shag. sometimes things happen when travelling, and exceptions have to be made. until i see a colb that states a person was born in the state with proof that a birth happened outside the country, your chasing assumptions.

it's not a logical leap to make, but an irrational one to chase after unless YOU have proof to the contrary. do you?

unless it can be proven that he was born out of country, or even out of state, then it's an illogical leap to ASSume he was.
so i ask, what is your arguement about? are you saying he wasn't born in hawaii, and he faked his colb? or someone thought years ago to fake the registry, thinking he might one day need to produce it for some conspiracy group?
i don't get the justification for your direction of arguement. is it just to try and back up monster mark?

as said, unless you have proof to the contrary, your blowing smoke.
and certificate number - 151-1961-010641.

i don't know how they do documentation in hawaii, but most places the 1961 in the registration number usually represents the year of registration, not the birth year of applicant. if it wasn't registered until last year, i'm sure it would be 2007 in there. so someone had some premonition that he might need it in the future and actually got him as being born in the u.s. in 1961. and saying that he was born in honolulu, oahu.
not anywhere else, and just registered in hawaii.

i mean, his mother got out a crystal ball, saw into the future, and lied about the whole thing, 47 years ago. totally illogical, isn't it?

Why are so many people making assumptions about my argument or the arguments I repeat?! I never said Obama was not born in Hawaii!!!!!!!

But, that doesn't mean he is by definition a natural born citizen (or even a native born citizen, depending on the law and it's interpetation). Because of Hawaiian law, you cannot assume that because Obama has a valid COLB he is a natural born citizen. that is a huge logical leap.

Why do you people keep assuming that when Hawaiian law shows that you cannot!!!!!

Why don't you get my argument right instead of mischaracterizing it!

 

[shagdrum]

All the silly little claims about me, those would be the lies, obviously. You continue still.

The can all be substatiated (and have, in most cases).

It's rather simple, YOU made a claim; then danced around the question which asked you to substantiated said claim, this caused you to start slinging the "dishonest", "smearing" etc. claims about me; it's not hard to tell you used these tactics to distract away that YOU made a claim and then couldn't support it.

Considering you habit of ignoring the points other make, you cannot be taken at your word here. So provide links and specifics. What specific claim (or claims) did I "dance around" here? Put up or shut up.

As far as me insulting you, I said "conspiracy seeker" and I directly called you a "clown-shoe", this was after you started making those lie-smears against me. If you dish it out, be man enough to take it, all I ask.

And I wasn't originally attacking you for insulting me, but for trying to marginalize a point of view by attacking those who agreed with it instead of providing any substantive critique. It is a rather $h!ty tactic to take, and I have a real problem with people using it.

The funniest part, I didn't allow you to turn the conversation away from you not being able to directly answer a simple question

What question was that? Where did you post that question? Where did I try to turn the conversation away from my "not directly answering the question"?

which is why you put me on ignore (or at least claimed to) and then continued to lie about me/insult me. Very poor form there, if you're going to cry about ignoring me, then don't mention me any further.

I spelled out why I added you to that list, and you are once again, intentionally and dishonestly mischaracterizing that. Here is what I wrote:

Because of your inability to have any decent, respectful, logical and honest conversation with anyone you disagree with on this forum​

You have aptly demonstrated that here in this forum. In this thread alone we have seen the following from you:

• Implied attempt at marginalization through smearing in post #191 (appeal to ridicule)
• In post #293 you baselessly asserted that the whole focus on Obama natural born status issue was due to a those people being "sore losers" (appeal to ridicule, possible proof by assertion?)
• In post #295 you mischaracterize the argument as to why the claims of politifact and factcheck were unreliable
• In post #299 you started smearing me personally after I called you on your dishonest smear attempt in post #293 and your mischaracterization in post #295
• In posts #306 and #307 you started running with the irrelevant question (to this debate) as to "who Obama should turn the COLB over to", while wrongly claiming in post #306 that Obama did turn his COLB over to factcheck and politicfact (it is questionable at best; it is very likely a copy and not the real deal, and it wasn't the long form COLB )
• In post #319 you again blatantly attempted to marginalize through smearing by calling people who question the authenticity of the COLB Obama did turn over as "conspiracy seekers", while also repeating your question about who he sould turn the COLB over to, which I had already answered in post #315
• In post #330, you again attempted to marginalize through smearing, as well as moving the goalposts to raise the burden of proof (demanding concrete proof). Then smeared me personally and again asked a question I had answered in post #315
• Post #335; more personal attacks and attempts to marginalize as well as a repeat of the question I had already answered in post #315; this time you start to claim that I am "dancing around the question"

There are other things in this thread alone that I could point out, (some blatantly vindictive things) but that is a good list, IMO.

Here's a little quote in return: “For one to expect or ask things of others that he himself, if asked, would not be willing to do or give, is the worst kind of arrogance.” -Anthony Beal

I actually try to maintain some level civility and honesty in debating here instead of using decietfullness, marginalization, personal attacks and otherwise fallacious or disengenuous tactics in my arguments. That is all I ever ask of anyone else here.

However, when someone comes in and starts intentionally using those tactics, without any regard to maintaining civility, then as far as I am concerned the argument is over (at least with them over that issue) because they are incapable of being reasoned with. At that point, I turn my attention to making it clear that they cannot be reasoned with and countering the lack of civility on their part, any concern about the actual debate with them is secondary. I have a big problem letting that crap stand (it is probably a character flaw on my part, that it is hard for me to walk away from that kind of thing).

So, you can say I am weak for not being able to walk away, but I am consistent in giving what I ask for. I Maintain civility and don't use underhanded tactics in my arguments. focusing on times when I am not debating but am pointing out underhanded tactics is a different matter all together.

You show decency in your arguments and I will return it. You show a lack of decency,honesty and/or reasonableness and I will call you on it, every time.

Anyhow, I'd still like your response to 'who should Obama turn his COLB into?', as no one is asking for it. Your claim of 'this would all be over if Obama would just turn over his birth certificate', implies he's withholding it for dubious reasons.

I gave it on December 13th, in post #315. I told you as much on December 15th in post #329. Once again you are intentionally ignoring the answer to continue asking the question and distract from any debate. I will not answer that question again. The question is irrelevant and only serves to distract from the issue. I pointed out why in both posts 315 and 329 as well, in case you missed that.

 

[hrmwrm]

"So to assume that because he has a COLB on file, he was born in Hawaii and is a native born citizen is a huge logical leap, unless you can logically rule out all those other possibilities allowed for under the law.

If Obama were to release his COLB (the long one on file in Hawaii), then it would put all this to rest, as it would show the place of birth, date, time, everything. "


maybe because you make statements like this. sure sounds like your questioning the validity of birth place. and since his says where he was born. he has released it. he could bring it over to those questioning it personally, with officials from hawaii verifying it's authenticity, and this crowd would still not go away. they would still question it if you pinned it to their forehead so as not to miss it.

registering a birth of parents from hawaii for a child born in another country(mccains case as an example) would say where the birth place was. it would be a hawaiian colb registry, stating place of birth as panama. that's the point.

anything else is just trying to confuse a dead issue.

the original context of this arguement was a faked colb. now that this issue has been satisfactorily cleared, the rest is just smoke.

plus it sure sounds like a desperate tactic from a desperate group trying to hold on to something that isn't theirs anymore.

now the truth is out, what EXACTLY is the arguement against him not being a natural born citizen? the requirements of law ARE there.

 

[MediumD]

No, you're stupid.

No, you're stupid.

 

[Joeychgo]

No name calling please.

 

[foxpaws]

No name calling please.

No you're stu.... wait... just got caught up!!!!

I think the whole birth certificate thing is truly running around in conspiracy circles - the only thing I thought was interesting was the natural born citizen clause - does Obama qualify and would the supreme court deal with it if he didn't?

I wonder if it is a little like the Patriot Act - overstep the constitution for the 'current' good of the country. It probably would be a fuzzy decision if it came down, because the court certainly doesn't want to deal with immigration at this point. And if they got too specific with this issue it could directly relate to anchor babies.

So, would they sidestep a small clause, that really doesn't step on anyone's 'inalienable rights'? They seemed to be willing to look the other way for the Patriot Act - and it stepped directly on the people's rights. They did this for the 'good of the country'.

There seems to be opinion that the court sees this as "the people voted, we aren't going to overturn the election on this 'minor' point."

And what would the fallout be if they did disqualify Obama? I think earlier on there was quite the discussion that perhaps a decision like that could lead to riots. Would the court want to be responsible for that? Probably not.

I think the court does to some extent listen to the people. Whether they should or not, they aren't totally isolated. And in this case, with all the other problems the nation is facing, inside our borders and abroad, I believe they wouldn't want to add to that pile by ruling on a rather contentious point in the constitution.

 

[TheDude]

What question was that? Where did you post that question? Where did I try to turn the conversation away from my "not directly answering the question"?

I gave it on December 13th, in post #315. I told you as much on December 15th in post #329. Once again you are intentionally ignoring the answer to continue asking the question and distract from any debate. I will not answer that question again. The question is irrelevant and only serves to distract from the issue. I pointed out why in both posts 315 and 329 as well, in case you missed that.

I edited your reply down to this; I don't want to continue the "no you" debate.

Your Post #315: A valid question, but irrelevant to proving or disproving the claim that he should release it. My answer would be to publicly call on, and send the appropriate paperwork, to the appropriate department in Hawaii and have them publicly release it to the press and the public; No blacked out area's, official seal in place, everything. Invite fact check organizations and the organizations/ big names questioning his status to come view it.

This was a non-answer, as which "appropriate department in Hawaii" is asking for it? That aside, which "fact check organizations" should he invite, as factcheck's and politicheck's findings don't hold water with you? Which "big names" are questioning his status?

Your Post #329:As I have pointed out, this is a red herring designed to obfusacte here. The who is logically irrelevant to the why. Any answer to the question of "who he should turn his COLB over to" says absolutetly nothing about the issue of why he should turn it over.

It is simply another dishonest attempt by you to change the focus of the subject.

Besides, I already answered this question in post #315, and others have also answered it in this thread.

Stop being an @$$ and continue asking the same question while intentionally ignoring what other people have written that already answers that question.

Yet again, this was another non-answer. No one is asking for it, so why should he turn it over?

 

[shagdrum]

"So to assume that because he has a COLB on file, he was born in Hawaii and is a native born citizen is a huge logical leap, unless you can logically rule out all those other possibilities allowed for under the law.

If Obama were to release his COLB (the long one on file in Hawaii), then it would put all this to rest, as it would show the place of birth, date, time, everything. "


maybe because you make statements like this. sure sounds like your questioning the validity of birth place. and since his says where he was born. he has released it. he could bring it over to those questioning it personally, with officials from hawaii verifying it's authenticity, and this crowd would still not go away. they would still question it if you pinned it to their forehead so as not to miss it.

registering a birth of parents from hawaii for a child born in another country(mccains case as an example) would say where the birth place was. it would be a hawaiian colb registry, stating place of birth as panama. that's the point.

anything else is just trying to confuse a dead issue.

the original context of this arguement was a faked colb. now that this issue has been satisfactorily cleared, the rest is just smoke.

plus it sure sounds like a desperate tactic from a desperate group trying to hold on to something that isn't theirs anymore.

now the truth is out, what EXACTLY is the arguement against him not being a natural born citizen? the requirements of law ARE there.

I have never once argued anything about his birth place. I have no doubt that he was born in Hawaii. But it is questionable as to weather he was born a U.S. citizen as provided for under the 14th amendment (as it was originally understood, not as the courts have redefined it). And, even assuming he was born a U.S. citizen it is still not clear if he would qualify as a natural born citizen.

That is all I have ever been saying. To make any judgements, either way, you need to start from there; not from a likely photoshopped (at least to copy it), unofficial and inauthentic birth cirtificate that is only a shorter version of the real deal.

 

[shagdrum]

This was a non-answer

It was more of an answer then the question warranted in this debate. The question is irrelevant to the debate and only serves to distract and obfuscate from it.

as which "appropriate department in Hawaii" is asking for it?

This is just plain ignorant. My answer never even assumed that any department in Hawaii was asking for it or needed to ask for it. More mischaracterization...

That aside, which "fact check organizations" should he invite, as factcheck's and politicheck's findings don't hold water with you? Which "big names" are questioning his status?

another question ment to obfuscate. He could make it very broad in scope (Obama is very good at doing that when it suits his agenda). Again, it is irrelevant to this debate.

Yet again, this was another non-answer

More proof by assertion from 'TheDude'. FYI; just because you want to spin something in a negative fashion doesn't mean that whatever you say is fact.

Since, by your standard, questions that are irrelevant to the debate are allowed and required to be answered, then answer me this...

Which Starbuck is the definative Starbuck, and why; the male Starbuck from the old TV show, or the female Starbuck from the new TV show?

If you do not answer the question to my satisfaction, the you are obviously dodging the question and your whole point of view of weather Obama should or shouldn't release his official COLB is discredited.

No one is asking for it, so why should he turn it over?

The first part of this is misleading and ruins the whole question because it makes it a bit of a loaded question. Weather or not someone is asking for it doesn't say anything about why he should release it; especially given the reasons in the motions filed about this. The reasons he should turn it over are two; first because there is a very serious and legitimate constiutional issue here that needs to be clarified (and the release of the COLB is the first step in that process). Second; Obama says he wants a transparent and open administration and government. If he will not release the COLB when it is a constitutional requirement for his job and there is a legitimate question as to his status, he is countering his whole message and making it clear that the idea of being open and transparent is simply blowing smoke up the public's @$$.

 

[hrmwrm]

thank you for simplifying, shag. just reading through your other arguements, it appeared like you were starting to get lost in the colb question.


kinda interesting what i've found while trying to research this. nothing definitive on obama, but this on mccain

"Abstract:
Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen. '



so now i understand the case against mccain, but obama's seems even more trivial. most seems conspiracy related or grasping at straws for a last ditch attempt to get his election overturned.

 

[TheDude]

It was more of an answer then the question warranted in this debate. The question is irrelevant to the debate and only serves to distract and obfuscate from it.

This is just plain ignorant. My answer never even assumed that any department in Hawaii was asking for it or needed to ask for it. More mischaracterization...

another question ment to obfuscate. He could make it very broad in scope (Obama is very good at doing that when it suits his agenda). Again, it is irrelevant to this debate.

More proof by assertion from 'TheDude'. FYI; just because you want to spin something in a negative fashion doesn't mean that whatever you say is fact.

Since, by your standard, questions that are irrelevant to the debate are allowed and required to be answered, then answer me this...

Which Starbuck is the definative Starbuck, and why; the male Starbuck from the old TV show, or the female Starbuck from the new TV show?

If you do not answer the question to my satisfaction, the you are obviously dodging the question and your whole point of view of weather Obama should or shouldn't release his official COLB is discredited.

The first part of this is misleading and ruins the whole question because it makes it a bit of a loaded question. Weather or not someone is asking for it doesn't say anything about why he should release it; especially given the reasons in the motions filed about this. The reasons he should turn it over are two; first because there is a very serious and legitimate constiutional issue here that needs to be clarified (and the release of the COLB is the first step in that process). Second; Obama says he wants a transparent and open administration and government. If he will not release the COLB when it is a constitutional requirement for his job and there is a legitimate question as to his status, he is countering his whole message and making it clear that the idea of being open and transparent is simply blowing smoke up the public's @$$.

Another round of you claiming "distraction", "obfuscate" and logical fallacies, joy.

The question isn't irrelevant, you're saying he should release it, as to put the suspicion to rest; he has released it; it's been verified, you just don't agree with those doing it. So who else should he release it to, as no one else is asking for it? It's very telling the way you dance around this question, after YOU made the claim.

Again, you said he should release it to some department in Hawaii, so which one? Don't make a claim that he should do something, when you don't have an answer as to who he should release it to and why he should release it [again] in the first place (can you answer either of these?). Same goes for your claims about releasing it to 'factcheck groups' and 'the big names who are asking for it', as no on is asking for it. You made these claims, back them up, or STFU (as you say). Which groups, which big names?

I would happily answer your Starbuck question, if I made a claim about Starbuck to begin with; I didn't now, did I. See how that works? (also, I've never watched the new BSG)

"Legitimate constiutional issue here that needs to be clarified" If this is true, then someone of proper authority should request he do so, has anyone done this?

"Obama says he wants a transparent and open administration and government. If he will not release the COLB when it is a constitutional requirement for his job and there is a legitimate question as to his status" He has released it already; it's been given the clear. No one else of authority is asking for it, so why should he just do something he already has done?

 

[Marcus]

(also, I've never watched the new BSG)

SACRILEGE!

 

[Calabrio]

so now i understand the case against mccain, but obama's seems even more trivial. most seems conspiracy related or grasping at straws for a last ditch attempt to get his election overturned.

Hardly.
First, though this isn't a legal argument, tell me what you think-
Do you think that the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of soldiers who are forced to serve overseas during their career from being President? Or do you think that they would be more concerned about children born of non-citizens with dual citizenship with another country?

Points not being challenged:
1-Obama's father was a citizen of another country.
2-His father never had an allegiance to the United States
3-Obama was born with dual citizenship

Now the hypothetical, had his father wanted custody and brought him to be raised in Kenya until he was 14 years old, and then returned to finish high school and college in the United States, do you think he'd be eligible to be President?

 

[TheDude]

SACRILEGE!

Meh, the new series doesn't have Erin Gray, doubt I'm missing much.

 

[foxpaws]

Erin Gray? Buck Rogers sweetheart....

Dirk Benedict - Original Starbuck. Different time, different show (Bonanza in space).

I thought this was a rather revealing quick glance at the current Battlestar...

One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of
Battlestar Galactica everything is female driven. The male
characters, from Adama on down, are confused, weak, and wracked with
indecision while the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as
hell, puffing cigars (gasp) and not about to take it any more.

Written, oddly, by Dirk Benedict...

 

[04SCTLS]

Erin Gray? Buck Rogers sweetheart....

Dirk Benedict - Original Starbuck. Different time, different show (Bonanza in space).

I thought this was a rather revealing quick glance at the current Battlestar...

One thing is certain. In the new un-imagined, re-imagined world of
Battlestar Galactica everything is female driven. The male
characters, from Adama on down, are confused, weak, and wracked with
indecision while the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as
hell, puffing cigars (gasp) and not about to take it any more.

Written, oddly, by Dirk Benedict...

Sounds like a disguised complex Dominatrix fantasy :I

 

[foxpaws]

Sounds like a disguised complex Dominatrix fantasy :I

Not that 'disguised'...

 

[fossten]

Meh, the new series doesn't have Erin Gray, doubt I'm missing much.

:bowrofl:

 

[hrmwrm]

Hardly.
First, though this isn't a legal argument, tell me what you think-
Do you think that the founding fathers wanted to exclude the children of soldiers who are forced to serve overseas during their career from being President? Or do you think that they would be more concerned about children born of non-citizens with dual citizenship with another country?

Points not being challenged:
1-Obama's father was a citizen of another country.
2-His father never had an allegiance to the United States
3-Obama was born with dual citizenship

Now the hypothetical, had his father wanted custody and brought him to be raised in Kenya until he was 14 years old, and then returned to finish high school and college in the United States, do you think he'd be eligible to be President?

can't answer the hypothetical, but i did find this
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html


"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. "


the above was given as an answer to the question of "isn't he ineligable"
he had dual at birth, only as a consequence of his father, not because he sought it. just because it was granted to him automatically because of his father, does not mean he was ever a kenyan citizen. it means only that if he requested it, it probably would be granted, but i haven't seen anything that states he ever was a registered kenyan citizen.

since he was born of an american citizen, has never renounced his american citizenship, and has never sought an alter citizenship, i would think that there is no case against him.

and until scotus accepts a case to go forward, this thread is beating a dead horse.

and i don't think mccain is ineligable either, just thought the premise of the case interesting.

 

[TheDude]

Erin Gray? Buck Rogers sweetheart....
...

My bad, it's been awhile.

 

[shagdrum]

Another round of you claiming "distraction", "obfuscate" and logical fallacies, joy.

Yes, and you, as usual, want to ignore such concerns. Illogical arguments should rain, according to you, apparently.

The question isn't irrelevant, you're saying he should release it, as to put the suspicion to rest; he has released it; it's been verified, you just don't agree with those doing it.

First: He has not released it. I dare you to prove otherwise. What he released was a short for, copy. Not official. It cannot be official because it has been altered. And I am talking about the long form original that Hawaii has verified that they have on file.

Second: you can keep asserting all you want, but unless you can logically demonstrate that any answer to that question would some how either vindicate or discredit the argument that Obama should release his official (long form) birth cirtificate, then the question inherently shifts the focus away from what this debate is about (weather he should release his birth certificate) and changes it to something else (who he should release his birth certificate to).

In regards to the question itself: instead of assuming that I automatically have to answer it; you should consider the fact that you need to justify the question as relevant. You haven't offered anything to justify that specific question. All you have offered is a restatement of the question (as well as personal attacks for not answering it), and then questioned weather Obama should release it

It's very telling the way you dance around this question, after YOU made the claim.

Oh? And what does it tell?

The truth is that it is rather telling the way you keep bringing it up as a tool to smear me with, but refuse to justify it's relevance (or even consider the fact that it is irrelevant and an obvious attempt to shift the focus of the debate).

Again, you said he should release it to some department in Hawaii, so which one?

What I stated was that he should fill out the appropriate paperwork and publicly call on the appropriate department to release it; not release it to them. Don't mischaracterize me (something very hard for you to do). But we wouldn't want to take away one of your best tools for making a convincing argument. We can't expect you to do that through making a logical argument.

The department I was referring to would be whichever one has the long form COLB. I think that is the Health Department, but I am not sure.

Don't make a claim that he should do something, when you don't have an answer as to who he should release it to and why he should release it [again] in the first place (can you answer either of these?).

Now you break the two ideas of 'who he should release it to' and 'why he should release it'. You are acknowledging the fact that they are two separate ideas. FYI; you just strengthed my point about your question being irrelevant and an attempt to distract.

And I have more then answered the question of 'why he should release it' in this thread. But, you can't be expected to be honest and acknowledge that, can you.

Same goes for your claims about releasing it to 'factcheck groups' and 'the big names who are asking for it', as no on is asking for it. You made these claims, back them up, or STFU (as you say). Which groups, which big names?

Citing (or not citing) specific groups does not in any way strengthen or work against any statement I made about releaseing it to 'factchecking groups'. IT is simply an attempt by you to ignore my answer by raising the goalposts.

You are countering youself all over this post!! You acknowledge that my distinction between weather and who is correct, but then premise the rest of the argument on the assumption that they are the same. You also claim I didn't answer your question, but then keep breaking down my answer.

All you are, obviously, doing is breaking down my answer to keep claiming that it isn't enough and move the goalposts to raise the burden of proof. Even if I were to name a specific department and/or factcheck group, you could keep going and ask for the specific person, office number address, DOB, etc. etc..

It is an obvious dishonest trick on your part.

Instead of working to keep the burden of proof on everyone else through dishonest mean, have you ever realized that occasionally, in any argument, the (evidentiary) burden of proof falls on you? Or are you choosing to ignore that?

I would happily answer your Starbuck question, if I made a claim about Starbuck to begin with; I didn't now, did I. See how that works? (also, I've never watched the new BSG)

Well then, all your claims about the Obama COLB are discredited. You are clearly dodging the question. You could very easily go look up who they are, and make a choice. :shifty:

"Legitimate constiutional issue here that needs to be clarified" If this is true, then someone of proper authority should request he do so, has anyone done this?

Another leading/loaded question....

It is a legitimate constitutional issue, and someone in proper authority should look into this. But Simply because no apparently has, does not logically say anything about the legitimacy of the claim.

"Obama says he wants a transparent and open administration and government. If he will not release the COLB when it is a constitutional requirement for his job and there is a legitimate question as to his status" He has released it already; it's been given the clear. No one else of authority is asking for it, so why should he just do something he already has done?

Another loaded question. It assumes things that are not agreed uppon by both sides of this debate.

Again, he has not release an authentic COLB. He has released a copy (if not a fake) that has been altered and cannot legally be considered authentic.

Is it really too much to ask that you not be decietful, dishonest, smear and obfuscate?! Is that really too much to ask of you?

 

[shagdrum]

can't answer the hypothetical, but i did find this
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html


"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship. "


the above was given as an answer to the question of "isn't he ineligable"
he had dual at birth, only as a consequence of his father, not because he sought it. just because it was granted to him automatically because of his father, does not mean he was ever a kenyan citizen. it means only that if he requested it, it probably would be granted, but i haven't seen anything that states he ever was a registered kenyan citizen.

since he was born of an american citizen, has never renounced his american citizenship, and has never sought an alter citizenship, i would think that there is no case against him.

"Native born citizen" does not equal "natural born citizen". The argument you are making assumes that it does.

And simply being born on U.S. soil (even with one parent a U.S. citizen) does not neccessarily make you a U.S. citizen per the 14th amendment, depending on constitutional interpretation.

and until scotus accepts a case to go forward, this thread is beating a dead horse.

Agreed. But simply making the argument here was never my main reason for getting involved in this thread.

 

[shagdrum]

thank you for simplifying, shag. just reading through your other arguements, it appeared like you were starting to get lost in the colb question.


kinda interesting what i've found while trying to research this. nothing definitive on obama, but this on mccain

"Abstract:
Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in the United States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens. The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born Citizen" and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the Constitution.

This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional law implied by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases and expanding judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by Congress, could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen. '



so now i understand the case against mccain, but obama's seems even more trivial. most seems conspiracy related or grasping at straws for a last ditch attempt to get his election overturned.

I do appriciate you taking the time and trying to understand the arguement being made, rather then just jumping in and trashing it...

What you cite is dependant on certian interpretations of the 14th amendment. The people who created the 14th amendment had a specific idea of what that ment and didn't meant. That has been distorted through certian court opinions and in the public eye.

It comes down to the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis. The argument in favor of Obama being a natural born citizen assumes that citizenship is based soley on jus soli principles (birthright citizenship is determined by place of birth) as well as that being a native born citizen means that you are also a natural born citizen under the constitution.

I am trying to look at this empirically; so no assumptions that cannot be proven.

The native born vs. natural born is rather unclear at best, but there are strong indicators that natural born was considered above and beyond native born.

The bigger thing is the jus soli vs. jus sanguinis thing. When you look at the past (and I have linked to and/or quoted enough direct sources that indicate this), it is clear that our constitution standard (as created) for citizenship is based on a unique combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis; with a heavier weight toward the later. That is why a child born in Germany (on German soil) to U.S. parents is a citizen and why (under the view of the 14th amendment at it's creation), a child born in the U.S. to foreigners is not a U.S. citizen by birth.

The fact that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen only complicates matters, as well.