 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / November 2008Interesting Article on Obama's birth certificate
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 I am not sure what to believe. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii (and not Kenya like his grandmother reportedly claims) then I suspect that the birth certificate has some embarrassing information such as maybe (I am speculating here) that his parents were not married? (a big deal back in 1961 which would be noted on the certificate as "illegitimate"). I don't know if his parents were married at Obama's birth, but I know his mother was 18 when he was born so she may have been 17 when she got pregnant. Maybe they were married at birth, but not at conception? There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or why else are they hiding it? > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or > why else are they hiding it? For entertainment purposes. That's why they're "hiding" it. You're like a slug dropped into a dish of salt. > For entertainment purposes. That's why they're "hiding" it. You're like a > slug dropped into a dish of salt. So now you can admit that the stuff we have seen so far is not the original birth certificate, and that the original or copy of the original does exist, and they are not releasing it. Right? >> For entertainment purposes. That's why they're "hiding" it. You're like a >> slug dropped into a dish of salt. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Right? Wrong. You will NEVER see the original, as more than one person has taught you in the past few days. Accept this. It's fact. It's how things are done. > Wrong. You will NEVER see the original, as more than one person has taught > you in the past few days. Accept this. It's fact. It's how things are > done. You can't read very well, can ya? I said the original birth certificate exists (according to the Governor of Hawaii) but it has been sealed (how can you seal a document that doesn't exist?) unless Obama approves of its release. Obviously, some officials in the state of Hawaii have seen it. Denial is not a river in Africa. >> Wrong. You will NEVER see the original, as more than one person has >> taught you in the past few days. Accept this. It's fact. It's how things [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Denial is not a river in Africa. No, it has NOT been "sealed", as you've been taught over the past few days. You don't read very well. > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or > why else are they hiding it? You should have done further research. In the time since this story was published, it turns out that the governor of Hawaii did not seal anything. > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or > why else are they hiding it? Location. He was born there not here, or somewhere in between, on a boat maybe. If it was really in Hawaii there should be records to put this to rest. Why they continue to keep them from the public only adds to the uncertainty. All we get is phony computer generated document with a oh so perfect signature, which appears almost like it was computer generated. God they must think the public is gullible. And yes there are those like SMS who believes anything they tell him because he is an obama follower and doesn't want anything negative said about his holy one.  SignatureFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx > Location. He was born there not here, or somewhere in between, on a > boat maybe. How do you know where you were born? Can I request a copy of your birth certificate? Did you discover the significance of "EBI" yet? > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or > why else are they hiding it? You are the type that keeps looking at the spot the illusionist/ magician wants you to look long after the the illusion is completed. I have a card game you will love - 3 card Monte. Just $20.00 a turn. > You are the type that keeps looking at the spot the illusionist/ > magician wants you to look long after the the illusion is completed. > I have a card game you will love - 3 card Monte. Just $20.00 a turn. No, I just like the truth, and not the fairy tails out of your mouth. You should now admit that the stuff we have seen so far is not the original birth certificate, and that the original or copy of the original does exist, and they are not releasing it. Right? >> You are the type that keeps looking at the spot the illusionist/ >> magician wants you to look long after the the illusion is completed. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Right? I told you before: The reason for not releasing it is for entertainment purposes. Making no-account layabouts like waste energy thinking about it: Priceless. > I told you before: The reason for not releasing it is for entertainment > purposes. Making no-account layabouts like waste energy thinking about it: > Priceless. The real entertainment is how completely mindless Obama supporters like you (I am not suggesting that all Obama supporters are mindless, just a few idiots like you) keep denying that something exists, that the Governor of Hawaii says it exists and has sealed the document (which you claim doesn't exist). >> I told you before: The reason for not releasing it is for entertainment >> purposes. Making no-account layabouts like waste energy thinking about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of Hawaii says it exists and has sealed the document (which you claim > doesn't exist). Guess again. The governor did not order anyone's birth certificate sealed. >>> I told you before: The reason for not releasing it is for entertainment >>> purposes. Making no-account layabouts like waste energy thinking about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Guess again. The governor did not order anyone's birth certificate sealed. Shh, it's a big scandal how the governor sealed the birth certificate (even though she didn't), and how Obama hasn't provided an official copy to the media (even though he has). It's very important that Mark pursue this matter until he's completely convinced that Obama can legally be president. It may take him eight years to finish his research on this matter. > Shh, it's a big scandal how the governor sealed the birth certificate > (even though she didn't), and how Obama hasn't provided an official copy > to the media (even though he has). It's very important that Mark pursue > this matter until he's completely convinced that Obama can legally be > president. It may take him eight years to finish his research on this > matter. The governor did seal the birth certificate. It is not a scandal to do so, since it is private information unless there is a court order. No one ever said it was a scandal. What was said is that the original birth certificate does exist (and is not the same as the 2007 certificate which is an "abstract" which is not sealed and was released), despite those idiots and liars on this forum who claimed there is no birth certificate other than the 2007 document. You spend more time lying than I spend investigating, and it takes very little effort on my part to expose your deceptions. >> Shh, it's a big scandal how the governor sealed the birth certificate >> (even though she didn't), and how Obama hasn't provided an official copy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The governor did seal the birth certificate. Show a link to a valid source containing a statement from the governor, saying the records were sealed. Do it now. > Show a link to a valid source containing a statement from the governor, > saying the records were sealed. Do it now. I provided a link in the first post of this thread. The author of the article says the records are sealed. Whether or not the governor actually used those exact words is debatable (I don't know) but the effect is that only Obama, or a relative of his, (or presumably a court via a court order) is allowed to see a copy of the real birth certificate, and it is not available to the public. Keep in mind this is real birth certificate that you and a few others claimed doesn't exist (you claimed that the 2007 document is the real one) and now you are trying to change the subject by being nitpicky about the exact words used by the governor (even though you know I quoted the exact words in the article that I posted). >> Show a link to a valid source containing a statement from the governor, >> saying the records were sealed. Do it now. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > exact words used by the governor (even though you know I quoted the exact > words in the article that I posted). This is fun. >> Show a link to a valid source containing a statement from the governor, >> saying the records were sealed. Do it now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > order) is allowed to see a copy of the real birth certificate, and it is > not available to the public. The author was wrong and the story has since been retracted. I am sure you could get a certified copy if you want! ;-) > Keep in mind this is real birth certificate that you and a few others > claimed doesn't exist (you claimed that the 2007 document is the real one) > and now you are trying to change the subject by being nitpicky about the > exact words used by the governor (even though you know I quoted the exact > words in the article that I posted). I sure hope he does not give in. It'll drive people like you nuts! He should not have to provide birth records to higher standard than any other President. End of story. > The author was wrong and the story has since been retracted. Then I assume you can provide a source for that, and I assume someone has published the original birth certificate (or true copy) on the Internet? >> I told you before: The reason for not releasing it is for entertainment >> purposes. Making no-account layabouts like waste energy thinking about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of Hawaii says it exists and has sealed the document (which you claim > doesn't exist). Show me a statement from the governor saying the records were sealed. Any other response from you will be your admission that you are wrong. You *are* wrong. All that remains is for you to see it. > "Mark A" wrote: > I am not sure what to believe. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii (and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There must be something that is embarrassing in the birth certificate, or > why else are they hiding it? Recall that the McCain camp wanted to take anything to do with the families "off the table" and even Obama agreed. No one mentioned about Obama's mom being a "tramp," but Palin was attacked vigorously on her daughter as well as herself. I'm not sure what to make of it either. It would have been beneficial to have Obama come forward and speak of these allegations on his birth, what his grandmother said about her being in the delivery room in Kenya, his Selective Service records, etc. yet the media ignored all of it as did he. No mention of him having others removed from the ballet in Chicago when he ran so he was the only one to vote for. Factcheck.org turned out to be a farce created by him and people fell for it. The web and media made him a star, even though he was the least qualified of the lot. Hell, even I fell for it and voted for him in the primaries just to keep greedy Hillary and Billy away from the WH. Boy, was I duped! Luckily, I gained some smarts along the way and his mysterious background led to more questions until I bailed his camp for the lesser of two evils. B~ >> "Mark A" wrote: >> I am not sure what to believe. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii (and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > B~ Even the conservative media have not made an issue of his birth certificate. It's only been an issue for whack-job bloggers, and perhaps Hush Bimbo, the Garlique saleman on AM radio, but his worshippers aren't talking.... > Even the conservative media have not made an issue of his birth certificate. > It's only been an issue for whack-job bloggers, and perhaps Hush Bimbo, the > Garlique saleman on AM radio, but his worshippers aren't talking.... The Obama campaign played these bozos like a fiddle. Even after the birth certificate was verified, the neo-cons kept harping on it. And they're still doing it now! Maybe that's also part of the plan, Obama can start undoing W's damage while the neo-cons are still complaining about his birth certificate. Good strategy. Uh, Mark A, yeah I think there's really something behind all this fake birth certificate issue. You'd better devote your life to investigating it. See you in eight years. > Uh, Mark A, yeah I think there's really something behind all this fake > birth certificate issue. You'd better devote your life to investigating > it. See you in eight years. No one said the certificate that we have seen is fake. The certificate has been produced by a government agency and it is real. But we have not seen the document that is the basis of the 2007 certificate (which we now know exists per the link I posted in the first post of this thread). So why are they keeping the real birth certificate hidden? I don't claim to know the answer, but it does raise some questions. >> Uh, Mark A, yeah I think there's really something behind all this fake >> birth certificate issue. You'd better devote your life to investigating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they keeping the real birth certificate hidden? I don't claim to know the > answer, but it does raise some questions. One other option is that he is presenting all that he feels he needs to. Sure there had to be an original filed back in 1961. It just isn't necessary to go to the trouble of producing it for inspection. If you don't believe that my 8 month old car is mine, then fine, I will show the copy of my registration that I have in the glove compartment. If you want me to go down to the DMV and have them show you the original paperwork that the dealer filed, then you can kiss my a.s. I don't give a sh.t if you doubt my copy of the registration or not. :-) BTW, I don't care what my grandmother said about my car either. I have the finance paperwork, she doesn't. ;-) >>> Uh, Mark A, yeah I think there's really something behind all this fake >>> birth certificate issue. You'd better devote your life to investigating [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > BTW, I don't care what my grandmother said about my car either. I have > the finance paperwork, she doesn't. ;-) "He's the bank's bitch", said granny. :-) > One other option is that he is presenting all that he feels he needs to. > Sure there had to be an original filed back in 1961. It just isn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BTW, I don't care what my grandmother said about my car either. I have > the finance paperwork, she doesn't. ;-) According to the Governor of Hawaii, they have the original, but will not release it without Obama's permission. So there should be no speculation about the whether the original exists. What could there possibly be in the original birth certificate that would cause Obama to not release it? Maybe his parents were not married at the time of his birth (making him the first bastard president). The article suggests that Hawaii allows persons born outside of the state to have their birth registered with the state even if they were not born there. I would guess it may be the former (or something like it), but that is just speculation. You are really confused about your car registration. If you want to sell your car, you need the title (and you must sign it over to the purchaser), not the annual car registration. The title is the real proof of ownership, not your annual car registration. The original dealer paperwork has nothing to do with it, and is not analogous to the original birth certificate. You may not care about what your grandmother says, but there are constitutional requirements of citizenship that are required to be president, and presumably one must satisfy others (at a minimum a court of law), not just satisfy yourself as to whether those constitutional requirements are met. The bottom line is that the real birth certificate exists, the Governor of Hawaii has sealed it, and Obama will not release it (at least not yet). I have no idea if there is a problem with his citizenship, or just some other embarrassing information he doesn't want disclosed. But it does seem strange to me, especially after his grandmother said he was born in Kenya (not that constitutes proof either). >> One other option is that he is presenting all that he feels he needs to. >> Sure there had to be an original filed back in 1961. It just isn't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > What could there possibly be in the original birth certificate that would > cause Obama to not release it? Obama does not care if you don't recognize the certified copy. > Maybe his parents were not married at the time of his birth (making him > the first bastard president). The article suggests that Hawaii allows > persons born outside of the state to have their birth registered with the > state even if they were not born there. I would guess it may be the former > (or something like it), but that is just speculation. No it does not suggest that. > You are really confused about your car registration. If you want to sell > your car, you need the title (and you must sign it over to the purchaser), [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > law), not just satisfy yourself as to whether those constitutional > requirements are met. OK, Mr Nitpicky. It was not a perfect analogy, but apparently you got the point. The next time you get pulled over, let's hope the cop tears up your registration in your face and makes you produce the title. You should not have to go to all the trouble to produce the title for him, should you? Think about it. Thank you for helping me make my point. :-) > Obama does not care if you don't recognize the certified copy. I don't care if Obama cares or whether you care. > OK, Mr Nitpicky. It was not a perfect analogy, but apparently you got > the point. No, I don't get the point. Since the article I posted states that the certificate printed in 2007 could be a result of a birth that occurred outside of Hawaii that was registered in Hawaii, it is relevant to whether Obama meets the constitutional requirement to be president. The constitution does not say it is up to each candidate to decide for themselves whether they are qualified. > The next time you get pulled over, let's hope the cop tears up your > registration in your face and makes you produce the title. You should not > have to go to all the trouble to produce the title for him, should you? > Think about it. Thank you for helping me make my point. :-) When the police pull you over, they ask for your car registration to make sure you have a valid registration as required by law (license plates and the update stickers can be easily stolen). An annual car registration has no legal standing as to ownership (title) of a car according to the law, although if you don't have one, the police may investigate further if they think the car may be stolen. They don't make people carry an auto title in your car because if it the car were stolen with the title inside, someone could sell your car with valid proof of title, and the person who buys the car would not have to give it back to its rightful owner, even if it were stolen. If a person bought a car without a valid a title, then they would have to return the car to their rightful owner even if they paid for it and had no knowledge it was stolen. >> Obama does not care if you don't recognize the certified copy. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > outside of Hawaii that was registered in Hawaii, it is relevant to whether > Obama meets the constitutional requirement to be president. No it could not be. The 2007 certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has the location of birth clearly printed at the top: Honolulu. >>> Obama does not care if you don't recognize the certified copy. >> I don't care if Obama cares or whether you care. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No it could not be. The 2007 certified copy of Obama's birth certificate > has the location of birth clearly printed at the top: Honolulu. Shh, it's very important that Mark spend more time investigating this whole scandal. Rush and Sean told him that this is extremely important. I think it may take him until January 20th 2017 to get to the bottom of this whole issue. > No it could not be. The 2007 certified copy of Obama's birth certificate > has the location of birth clearly printed at the top: Honolulu. That is a good point. I was just repeating what the article said. The grandmother interview (where she says he was born in Kenya) is still perplexing, however. I am beginning to think there is just something embarrassing about the birth certificate, and that he was born in Hawaii. Maybe his parents were not married when he was born. Back in 1961 that was big deal, and would have been noted on the birth certificate as "illegitimate". I do know that his mother was only 18 at Obama's birth, and obviously 17 when she got pregnant (Obama was born on August 4th, 1961). Assuming she was 17 when she started college, she would have only been in Hawaii a few months before she got pregnant about November 4th of 1960. It seems unlikely that she would have married an African student after only knowing him for 3 months. Not to mention that interracial marriages in 1960 were very uncommon. The fact that they separated (divorced?) after 2 years also suggests they really didn't know each other well when married, and probably only married because of the pregnancy. > I do know that his mother was only 18 at Obama's birth, and obviously 17 > when she got pregnant (Obama was born on August 4th, 1961). Assuming she was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > months. Not to mention that interracial marriages in 1960 were very > uncommon. Not in Hawaii, not even in 1960. Even in the 1970s, Hawaii had something like 50-100x the micegenaton rate of the rest of the US. > Not in Hawaii, not even in 1960. Even in the 1970s, Hawaii had > something like 50-100x the micegenaton rate of the rest of the US. I assume you are talking about Asians and Caucasians marrying, or Asians and those of African decent marrying . You are obviously correct about that since native Hawaiians are of Asian decent, but I suspect that the number of Africans (or those of African decent) and Caucasian marriages in Hawaii was quite low, as it was anywhere in the US at that time. In any event, according to a Wikipedia article, Obama's mother was pregnant for about 3 months when she married Obama's father, even though his father was already married to another woman in Kenya. This was allowed in Kenya (and his other wife approved the marriage to a second wife), but obviously not in the US. Obama's father moved to Massachusetts (without his family) to attend Harvard about a year after he was born, and then his mother was granted a divorce about 2 years later. >> The next time you get pulled over, let's hope the cop tears up your >> registration in your face and makes you produce the title. You should [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > car to their rightful owner even if they paid for it and had no knowledge > it was stolen. You don't realize it, but you just proved yourself wrong again. The registration is a "stand-in" for the title, given to you for security purposes, ACCORDING TO YOUR EXPLANATION, which is correct. Birth records are given out in the same form: Substitutes for the actual document. Thank you for proving yourself wrong. > You don't realize it, but you just proved yourself wrong again. The > registration is a "stand-in" for the title, given to you for security > purposes, ACCORDING TO YOUR EXPLANATION, which is correct. > > Birth records are given out in the same form: Substitutes for the actual > document. Thank you for proving yourself wrong. Wrong, a registration is proof that the car was registered with the Motor Vehicle Department and has a valid license plate. A title is proof of ownership of a car. You are not required to carry proof of ownership with you in the car. You are required to have a valid license plate and the annual vehicle registration form. Two different things. One is not a copy the other. >> You don't realize it, but you just proved yourself wrong again. The >> registration is a "stand-in" for the title, given to you for security [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > annual vehicle registration form. Two different things. One is not a copy > the other. Why don't you contact the Hawaii dep't of health, saying you want to stop by and photograph the original birth certificate. Tell them you're OK with having one of their employees standing next to you to be sure you don't steal it. Seriously. Do this. It'll only cost you a phone call or a stamp. Let us know what happens. > Why don't you contact the Hawaii dep't of health, saying you want to stop > by and photograph the original birth certificate. Tell them you're OK with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Seriously. Do this. It'll only cost you a phone call or a stamp. Let us > know what happens. The reporter in the link I posted already tried that, and they said it could not be released to public and the original birth certificate is what the reporter calls "sealed" (not my words, the reporter's words) unless its release is approved by Obama or is requested by a relative who has an valid interest in seeing it. Obama has not approved such a release. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=79174 <quote> The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama. . "It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information. Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant. <end quote> BTW, I was at the Dept of State website printing the form to get my passport renewed and I found out the an abbreviated abstract copy of the birth certificate like the one that Obama has released may not be valid for getting a passport: "Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes." http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html The birth certificate Obama released is an abstract version (according to the signature that was stamped on it), which omits things like the name of the hospital, occupation of parents, whether the birth was legitimate (whether the parents were married), etc. >> Why don't you contact the Hawaii dep't of health, saying you want to stop >> by and photograph the original birth certificate. Tell them you're OK [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > the hospital, occupation of parents, whether the birth was legitimate > (whether the parents were married), etc. Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much of a stink about this as you have. www.gop.com Let us know what they say. Have a nice day. > Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much of > a stink about this as you have. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Have a nice day. Since when does the Republican Party decide what is constitutional? I don't give a flip what they or any other politicians say. I would be interested in what the Supreme Court says. >> Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much >> of a stink about this as you have. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't give a flip what they or any other politicians say. I would be > interested in what the Supreme Court says. What are the various functions of the major political parties, as they relate to choices of candidates? >>> Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much >>> of a stink about this as you have. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What are the various functions of the major political parties, as they > relate to choices of candidates? LOL! Getting at, they're supposed to vet their nominees? They knew they had a winner, and they got him elected, and now he'll be in power. If it turns out he was ineligible, then Biden becomes POTUS, and everybody advances one. Pelosi gets closer to being Queen. Mark my words: if Barry turns out to be ineligible, this is just what they want. The sad thing will be if the Sheeple of the US let them get away with it. >>> Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much >>> of a stink about this as you have. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What are the various functions of the major political parties, as they > relate to choices of candidates? Wow. Perhaps you could be even more vague. How about a basic check on their candidate's eligibility? Best laugh I've had all day. >>>> Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much >>>> of a stink about this as you have. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wow. Perhaps you could be even more vague. If I was more specific, it would provide too many hints for Mark, who's about to lead himself in a conversational circle anyway. > How about a basic check on their candidate's eligibility? > > Best laugh I've had all day. Bingo. What about the opposing party? Two separate questions below - answer each separately, please. 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? 2) If you answer "yes" to question #1, do you think the Republican party was satisfied with what it found out? >> How about a basic check on their candidate's eligibility? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? I don't really know for certain. If they didn't, the person or persons involved in that one should be shot. > 2) If you answer "yes" to question #1, do you think the Republican party was > satisfied with what it found out? Assuming they did, I think that even if Obama was born in Africa ( I think it quite possible he was ), we'll never know the truth. > 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? > > 2) If you answer "yes" to question #1, do you think the Republican party > was satisfied with what it found out? The state election commissions should conduct the investigation before the candidate is put on the ballot in that state, not one of the political partitas. There is nothing in the constitution about a two-party system, so anyone should be able to re-raise the issue if new evidence is found (not that I am saying there is any new evidence yet). >> 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so anyone should be able to re-raise the issue if new evidence is found > (not that I am saying there is any new evidence yet). Other than experts in this newsgroup, what are you main sources for information on this controversy? I'm looking for specific names so I can read the same stuff that you are reading. > >> 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > information on this controversy? I'm looking for specific names so I can > read the same stuff that you are reading. LOL, jsb running out of questions....LOL SignatureFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx >> >> 1) Do you think the Republican party investigated Obama's eligibility? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >LOL, jsb running out of questions....LOL Joey is on a 'hot date' tonight.... Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall? ROFLMAO SignatureScott in Florida > Other than experts in this newsgroup, what are you main sources for > information on this controversy? I'm looking for specific names so I can > read the same stuff that you are reading. According to US Constitution, it is up to the each state legislature to choose the electors in the Electoral College. These days all state legislatures have passed laws that require popular elections to choose the electors (they could revoke those laws and chose the electors in the state legislature if they desired), and usually the elections are conducted by a State Election Commission and/or Secretary of State Office (of the state, not the US), but obviously this can vary by state as to the agency name who conducts the elections. Each state determines who gets on the ballot in that state, even for federal office. In most cases, the party must have received a certain number of votes in a primary or previous election, or submit a petition with the required numbered on qualified voters who have signed it, to be included on the ballot. If you check closely, you will see that some third party candidates are not on the ballot in each state, because they did not qualify according to state laws based on previous votes or petition.. I would presume (but cannot guarantee) that each state also makes sure that each candidate is legally qualified for federal office (age 25 for US Representative, age 30 for US Senator, age 35 and natural born citizen for US President). If they didn't do that, they are the ones who would be wasting money, and jeopardize the validity of their election. As far as the controversy goes, I know the difference between a birth certificate and a computerized abstract printed in 2007 when I see one (especially a birth certificate from 1961 when they were hand-written or made on a typewriter rather than the solely data in a computer). I already found, and presented, the evidence that the real birth certificate exists and is held by the state of Hawaii, but neither Obama nor the state of Hawaii will release it to the public (at least not yet). Of course, the fact that we can't see the original raises some speculation as to why Obama has not released it, but I don't know for sure. > As far as the controversy goes, I know the difference between a birth > certificate and a computerized abstract printed in 2007 when I see one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fact that we can't see the original raises some speculation as to why > Obama has not released it, but I don't know for sure. It doesn't raise any speculation with people who don't have some sort of agenda. Barack Obama presented the legal proof of his birth. If you want more than is legally required, then that is your problem, not his. Why does he have to go to the trouble of presenting more than anyone else does? > It doesn't raise any speculation with people who don't have some sort of > agenda. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why does he have to go to the trouble of presenting more than anyone else > does? Every time I start a new job, I present a copy of my birth certificate (a "true copy" of the original one). I don't see the big deal, and I cannot even imagine why someone would not release it to the public unless there was some reason (possibly there is some other embarrassing information regarding his birth or his family, I don't know). I don't have an agenda regarding this subject. The many people who have claimed (ridiculously) that were was no other original birth certificate besides the 2007 abstract seem to have an agenda, not me. >> It doesn't raise any speculation with people who don't have some sort of >> agenda. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > claimed (ridiculously) that were was no other original birth certificate > besides the 2007 abstract seem to have an agenda, not me. What are your main sources of information about this controversy? >> It doesn't raise any speculation with people who don't have some sort of >> agenda. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > claimed (ridiculously) that were was no other original birth certificate > besides the 2007 abstract seem to have an agenda, not me. When is the last time you got hired for a job? These days employers only need to see a photo ID and your SS card. Back in 1988, there was one employer who actually wanted their own copy of my birth certificate. A certified copy was all that was required, no original was needed to be seen. That employer was none other than the White House. :-) >> Other than experts in this newsgroup, what are you main sources for >> information on this controversy? I'm looking for specific names so I can >> read the same stuff that you are reading. > > According to US Constitution...... blah blah blah. Answer the question above. What are your main sources of information about this controversy? > Answer the question above. What are your main sources of information about > this controversy? You would have to be more specific. One of my sources is the US Constitution. I have posted some other sources. What specific statement do you want a source for? >> Answer the question above. What are your main sources of information >> about this controversy? > > You would have to be more specific. One of my sources is the US > Constitution. I have posted some other sources. What specific statement do > you want a source for? The Constitution says nothing about Obama's birth certificate. Do not say that again about a document written two centuries ago. What are your main sources of information about this controversy? You didn't make this up yourself. You read about the problem somewhere, probably in multiple places. Name your sources. > The Constitution says nothing about Obama's birth certificate. Do not say > that again about a document written two centuries ago. > > What are your main sources of information about this controversy? You > didn't make this up yourself. You read about the problem somewhere, > probably in multiple places. Name your sources. I may have vaguely heard about this months ago, but I don't recall for sure. I didn't see any detailed information until someone started posting links on this newsgroup recently. I don't have a single or main source of information. When someone posted the link to the Certified Birth Certificate (Abstract) that was printed and signed in 2007, my first reaction was "where is the original birth certificate?" I took exception to the claim by you and others that there was no real birth certificate besides the 2007 document. My belief that there was a real birth certificate that has not been made public is mostly based on my own birth certificate (made on a typewriter) produced about the same time as Obama's, and that it is therefore extremely likely that a real birth certificate exists for Obama (or at least did exist). It also seemed common sense (knowing the history of computers) that the information about Obama's birth certificate produced by the computerized 2007 printout was input into a computer much later than 1961 (although I don't have any absolute proof of this). I did post the source where a news organization claimed the real birth certificate is held by the State of Hawaii, but that a copy will not be released to the media or public without Obama's (or a close relative of Obama) permission. Someone else claimed the story is not accurate (mostly about the whether it was technically "sealed" or whether it will not be released to anyone without permission in accordance with Hawaii identity protection laws, and just like anyone else's birth certificate). But I believe the basic facts are correct that a real birth certificate (or "true copy" of the real birth certificate) is in possession of the state of Hawaii. >> The Constitution says nothing about Obama's birth certificate. Do not say >> that again about a document written two centuries ago. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "true copy" of the real birth certificate) is in possession of the state > of Hawaii. So, all your efforts here are based on fluff. That's why I kept asking about your sources. I wanted to hear you say it. You need a new hobby. > So, all your efforts here are based on fluff. That's why I kept asking > about your sources. I wanted to hear you say it. > > You need a new hobby. Sources for what? Sources for seeing a document printed in 2007 on a laser printer with only limited information on it, and intuitively knowing that it is not the original birth certificate for a 1961 birth? I don't need a source for that, I just used my brain to figure that out. My hobby is exposing your lies and abusive posts. I am pretty much guaranteed to not run out of stuff to do, and it doesn't cost much money. >> So, all your efforts here are based on fluff. That's why I kept asking >> about your sources. I wanted to hear you say it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My hobby is exposing your lies and abusive posts. I am pretty much > guaranteed to not run out of stuff to do, and it doesn't cost much money. My posts become more abusive as you continue to display your immaturity, and your inability to come to logical conclusions, which is the fault of your parents who neglected you. >> So, all your efforts here are based on fluff. That's why I kept asking >> about your sources. I wanted to hear you say it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My hobby is exposing your lies and abusive posts. I am pretty much > guaranteed to not run out of stuff to do, and it doesn't cost much money. LOL! Me too! > > Answer the question above. What are your main sources of information about > > this controversy? > > You would have to be more specific. One of my sources is the US Constitution. Again acting as his own attorney, Mark told the court, "Your honor, in my defense I would like to enter into evidence the United States Constitution." > Again acting as his own attorney, Mark told the court, "Your honor, in > my defense I would like to enter into evidence the United States > Constitution." I don't think I need to hire an attorney to figure out that one must be 35 years of age and a natural born citizen to be president of the United States. Do you? I actually do read parts of the document from time to time just to make sure I am being accurate. Having majored in Political Science in college, I actually do understand most of it, probably better than most attorneys (unless they happen to specialize in constitutional law). > What are the various functions of the major political parties, as they > relate to choices of candidates? The voters decide, with a few exceptions (such as the ridiculous and anti-democracy super-delegates that the Democrats used). > > What are the various functions of the major political parties, as they > > relate to choices of candidates? > > The voters decide, with a few exceptions (such as the ridiculous and > anti-democracy super-delegates that the Democrats used). The super delegates yes of course. What then is the point of the primary any way? The dims....open and progressive, LOL More phony bullshit. "Change, yes we can" so says obama...once again, a big LOL. SignatureFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx >>> One other option is that he is presenting all that he feels he needs to. >>> Sure there had to be an original filed back in 1961. It just isn't [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > have to go to all the trouble to produce the title for him, should you? > Think about it. Thank you for helping me make my point. :-) You have to produce the title to put the car on the road. Obama had to produce his BC to run for President. If it turns out it was fake, he's impeached. Simple. Except for the headache it will cause. In that case Biden becomes acting President, because you know McCain will raise a stink about being cheated out of his Presidency, and it will lead to a messy court battle and possibly a new election. Just better to prove hois BC is real now. >>>> One other option is that he is presenting all that he feels he needs >>>> to. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Obama had to produce his BC to run for President. Apparently not, or the Republican party would've demanded it. > If it turns out it was fake, he's impeached. Simple. If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the incompetence of his opponents and the party they represent. On Nov 21, 10:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the incompetence of > his opponents and the party they represent. you're inferring that the Demonrats are competent? AAHAHAHAH On Nov 21, 10:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the incompetence > of > his opponents and the party they represent. you're inferring that the Demonrats are competent? AAHAHAHAH =========== That's obviously NOT what I meant. Now, get back to the 7th grade locker room and your towel snapping event, boy. On Nov 21, 12:04 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > On Nov 21, 10:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's obviously NOT what I meant. Now, get back to the 7th grade locker > room and your towel snapping event, boy. Only if you return to your Sweaty Bedroom, Joe. Obviously not what you meant? Wasn't obvious to me, Joe. It was more likely you were making an inference, IM(seventh grade towel-snapping)HO. > On Nov 21, 10:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's obviously NOT what I meant. Now, get back to the 7th grade locker > room and your towel snapping event, boy. Obvious? To whom? The Democrats should have weeded out this "obvious" incompetent baffon long before he beat all of them in the Primaries. Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. Your eyes are still clouded ... >> You have to produce the title to put the car on the road. >> >> Obama had to produce his BC to run for President. > > Apparently not, or the Republican party would've demanded it. Why? He wasn't their candidate. >> If it turns out it was fake, he's impeached. Simple. > > If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the incompetence of > his opponents and the party they represent. It would show more for the incompetence and the disregard for the Constitution of his own party. >>> You have to produce the title to put the car on the road. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It would show more for the incompetence and the disregard for the > Constitution of his own party. The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a document. >>> If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the incompetence >>> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a > document. Split hairs. You know what the Constitution says. You know what the proof is. It is being called to question. He needs to prove it, or perhaps face impeachment. >>>> If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the >>>> incompetence [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is. It is being called to question. He needs to prove it, or perhaps face > impeachment. Complain to the Republican party. They seem satisfied with Obama's eligibility. You've got nothing. Nada. Here's their web site: http://www.gop.com/ Get in touch and ask them why they didn't make a stink out of the birth certificate issue. Do it right now. Get in touch. Don't come back until you have a clear answer from the Republican party. Right now. Do it. > Complain to the Republican party. They seem satisfied with Obama's > eligibility. You've got nothing. Nada. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Right now. Do it. Are you a member of the Gestapo? I don't take orders from the Republican Party or any other political party for that matter. >> Complain to the Republican party. They seem satisfied with Obama's >> eligibility. You've got nothing. Nada. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't take orders from the Republican Party or any other political party > for that matter. So, you'd rather continue wasting your time discussing an issue which originated with people unrelated to the Republican party itself? During an election campaign, is one of the party's responsibilities to provide ammunition with which to shoot down opponents from the other party? Yes or no? > So, you'd rather continue wasting your time discussing an issue which > originated with people unrelated to the Republican party itself? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes or no? I am not wasting my time discussing the issue of where or when Obama was born (As far as I know he was born in Hawaii and is over 35 years of age). I am wasting my time debunking the idiotic and abusive statements of a someone posting ridiculous comments on this newsgroup. His name is JoeSpareBedroom and it is my mission to expose him as the wacko and liar he is. > His name is > JoeSpareBedroom and it is my mission to expose him as the wacko and liar he > is. Save your effort. I've already done it a dozen times over. >> His name is >> JoeSpareBedroom and it is my mission to expose him as the wacko and liar >> he >> is. > > Save your effort. I've already done it a dozen times over. In this section of THIS THREAD, what have I lied about? > In this section of THIS THREAD, what have I lied about? I didn't know that threads were divided into sections, but you have repeatedly claimed that I said there is a problem Obama's birth certificate, when in fact what I said is that the Certified Abstract from 2007 that has been published on the Internet is not Obama's original birth certificate (which you have denied even exists). I have also said that the state of Hawaii has the original (or a copy of the original) and will not release to the general public or media. You have denied that the state of Hawaii will not release it to the public (or at least you claimed that governor did not "seal" it). >> In this section of THIS THREAD, what have I lied about? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have denied that the state of Hawaii will not release it to the public (or > at least you claimed that governor did not "seal" it). I said no such thing. >>> His name is >>> JoeSpareBedroom and it is my mission to expose him as the wacko and liar [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In this section of THIS THREAD, what have I lied about? I was referring to the wacko part... >> So, you'd rather continue wasting your time discussing an issue which >> originated with people unrelated to the Republican party itself? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > JoeSpareBedroom and it is my mission to expose him as the wacko and liar > he is. OK. What are your primary 10 sources, telling you that there's a problem with Obama's birth certificate? Name your sources. > OK. What are your primary 10 sources, telling you that there's a problem > with Obama's birth certificate? > > Name your sources. Sometimes you seem like you have at least average intelligence, but then often times it appears you cannot read. I never said that there is a "problem" with his birth certificate. I said the 2007 certified abstract on the internet is not his original (or "true copy") of his birth certificate. You (and some others) argued that there was no birth certificate other than the 2007 one released, which has been proven to be false since the governor of Hawaii said she will not let anyone see or copy the original unless they are closely related to Obama, or if Obama approves its release, supposedly in accordance with state law protecting people against identity theft. >> OK. What are your primary 10 sources, telling you that there's a problem >> with Obama's birth certificate? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or if Obama approves its release, supposedly in accordance with state law > protecting people against identity theft. Name your sources of information about this controversy. > > Complain to the Republican party. They seem satisfied with Obama's > > eligibility. You've got nothing. Nada. > > > > Here's their web site: > > http://www.gop.com/ They said Obama was a Muslim communist who belonged to the Tri-lateral Commission and al-Qaida and had fathered a black child. Nothing about him being legally ineligible for POTUS. > > Get in touch and ask them why they didn't make a stink out of the birth > > certificate issue. Do it right now. Get in touch. Don't come back until [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't take orders from the Republican Party or any other political party > for that matter. How do you know? >>>>> If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the >>>>> incompetence [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Right now. Do it. IIRC, the SCOTUS is looking into it. Good enough for me. I'll wait. >>>>>> If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the >>>>>> incompetence [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I'll wait. Translation: You're too busy browsing the web for useless car information. You can't take the time to research what you're saying, even if that research would've taken you all of 10 minutes, 1/100th as much time as you will waste with your baseless ideas. >>>>>>> If it turns out it was a fake, it could convince you of the >>>>>>> incompetence [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > research would've taken you all of 10 minutes, 1/100th as much time as you > will waste with your baseless ideas. Who cares? Until it's proved different by someone who actually matters (SCOTUS) what good is it going to do? "Useless car information" is actually more useful to me than whether Barry actually has a BC right now. If he doesn't, he'll be impeached and we'll have a new election. >>>> You have to produce the title to put the car on the road. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a > document. The Constitution DOES require a President to be a natural-born citizen. The Dems are settling for, "I was born here." This is apparently not sufficient. >>>>> You have to produce the title to put the car on the road. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The Dems are settling for, "I was born here." This is apparently not > sufficient. The Republicans are settling for it, too, unless I missed some official statements from the ***REPUBLICAN PARTY***. Notice that I did NOT say "from any Republican candidates". I'm talking about statements from the party itself, which is responsible for presenting us with candidates. Here's the Republican party's web site. www.gop.com Write to them and let me know what they say about this birth certificate issue. Be sure to show us the full text of their response to you, along with full information about the person who responded (name, email address, phone number, whatever they provide). > The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a > document. I think you may be wrong about that. At the very least, since the constitution has legal qualifications regarding age and citizenship, a candidate must present some kind of proof that they are qualified. You may be nitpicking about the exact proof required, but they must provide proof. Why do you think Obama's campaign released the birth certificate abstract in 2007? >> The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a >> document. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why do you think Obama's campaign released the birth certificate abstract > in 2007? Beats me, but what he provided was apparently enough for the Republican party to be satisfied. Contact the Republican party and find out why they haven't made as much of a stink about this as you have. www.gop.com Let us know what they say. Have a nice day. On Nov 22, 11:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > >> The Constitution does not require that a candidate provide access to a > >> document. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Have a nice day. Why don't you say this one more time in another message? On Nov 22, 11:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > "Mark A" <some...@someone.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Have a nice day. Why don't you say this one more time in another message? ================ I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > On Nov 22, 11:59 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. > Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. The burden of proof should be on the fricking guy that is about to be inaugurated. I can't answer why the GOP hasn't pursued this further, but I suspect it's because most of them are incompetent RINOs anyway.. On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > "Nza" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. > Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. The burden of proof should be on the fricking guy that is about to be inaugurated. I can't answer why the GOP hasn't pursued this further, but I suspect it's because most of them are incompetent RINOs anyway.. ============== My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. Otherwise, they would've. >On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >Otherwise, they would've. You expecting the ball less Republican Party to do anything? Bull sh.t SignatureScott in Florida >>On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Scott in Florida They provided you with candidates you liked. Based on your criteria, they must know what they're doing. >>>On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...@frontiernet.net> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >They provided you with candidates you liked. Based on your criteria, they >must know what they're doing. Nah....they did not. Palin was the only one worth voting for and I did. SignatureScott in Florida > They provided you with candidates you liked. Based on your criteria, they > must know what they're doing. No, sorry. The media chose the republican presidential "Hopeful".... We had no say in the matter. >> They provided you with candidates you liked. Based on your criteria, they >> must know what they're doing. > >No, sorry. The media chose the republican presidential >"Hopeful".... We had no say in the matter. Actually the left voting in the 'open' primaries had a lot to do with it too. McCain was the left's choice for Republican candidate. The only reason he came close was Palin. SignatureScott in Florida > My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. > Otherwise, they would've. It doesn't matter where or when Obama was born (I believe he was probably born in Hawaii and is over age 35). He still has to provide evidence that the meets the qualifications to be president. >> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >> Otherwise, they would've. > > It doesn't matter where or when Obama was born (I believe he was probably > born in Hawaii and is over age 35). He still has to provide evidence that > the meets the qualifications to be president. If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions? >>> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >>> Otherwise, they would've. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the > Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions? Far less than the likely illegal contributions given to Obama. That investigation, currently in progress, is going to be a real eye-opener provided it's actually done. >>>> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >>>> Otherwise, they would've. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Far less than the likely illegal contributions given to Obama. Not relevant to the question at all. > That investigation, currently in progress, is going to be a real > eye-opener provided it's actually done. Do you suppose an investigation (by the Republican party) should've begun within about 8 minutes of Obama announcing his candidacy? >>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not relevant to the question at all. Then why did you ask the following question? >> That investigation, currently in progress, is going to be a real >> eye-opener provided it's actually done. > > Do you suppose an investigation (by the Republican party) should've begun > within about 8 minutes of Obama announcing his candidacy? Are you kidding me? How could illegal contributions be investigated before they happened? Enjoyng that completely consumed bottle of Cabernet today? >>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Enjoyng that completely consumed bottle of Cabernet today? I was referring to an investigation of his eligibility. The birth cert issue. I was referring to no other issue, nor will I refer to any other issue at any future point in this section of this thread. >>>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > issue. I was referring to no other issue, nor will I refer to any other > issue at any future point in this section of this thread. Good for you. That'll mean something as soon as you call the shots. >>>>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Good for you. That'll mean something as soon as you call the shots. I said that to keep you from getting off track. Now, back to the question at hand: Do you suppose an investigation (by the Republican party) should've begun within about 8 minutes of Obama announcing his candidacy? >>>>>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>>>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Do you suppose an investigation (by the Republican party) should've begun > within about 8 minutes of Obama announcing his candidacy? Asked and answered. >>>>>>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>>>>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Asked and answered. If you are referring to this "response"... "Are you kidding me? How could illegal contributions be investigated before they happened?" that was meant for a different question. I'm referring only to the birth cert issue and to no other issue. >>>>>>>>> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >>>>>>>>> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > that was meant for a different question. I'm referring only to the birth > cert issue and to no other issue. Keep looking. >>> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >>> Otherwise, they would've. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the > Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions? More like Obama did. Of course, if the idea was to have him get elected, then proved ineligible, and have everyone in the party advance one space, then the people who donated money to the Obama campaign are the suckers. Wouldn't be the first time the Democrat party made suckers out of their constituents... >>>> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >>>> Otherwise, they would've. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > More like Obama did. Maybe Obama did, but that does not answer the question above. Here's the question again. If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions? > If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the > Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign > contributions? Personally, my guess is that he is eligible, but if for some reason there was a problem with his citizenship, it would be almost impossible to prove unless one could look at the original birth certificate. It just seems a little strange that he will not release the original (or copy thereof). >> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It just seems a little strange that he will not release the original (or > copy thereof). It is not strange at all, but you just don't get it. I hope sometime you are waiting in a line where everyone is writing a check for something. But when you step up, they tell you, and only you, that have to pay cash. > I hope sometime you are waiting in a line where everyone is writing a > check for something. But when you step up, they tell you, and only you, > that have to pay cash. Checks should be banned at the cash register. People should wait in line at the customer service desk to cash checks or go to the ATM machine if they want cash (but this is another subject). Given the controversy about this subject, and the video of the interview with his grandmother, and the current lawsuits on the subject, why would he not make it public? What is in the original birth certificate, that is not in the 2007 abstract, that he would not want know to the public? Anyway, this is pure speculation, and my only objection is with the idiots who claimed the 2007 abstract was the real and only birth certificate. I have no qualms with Obama (unless the stock market remains at it current levels or lower after he takes office). >> I hope sometime you are waiting in a line where everyone is writing a >> check for something. But when you step up, they tell you, and only you, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at the customer service desk to cash checks or go to the ATM machine if > they want cash (but this is another subject). Once again, I know you got the point. > Given the controversy about this subject, and the video of the interview > with his grandmother, and the current lawsuits on the subject, why would > he not make it public? What is in the original birth certificate, that is > not in the 2007 abstract, that he would not want know to the public? He should not have to prove himself to a higher standard than anyone else does. It does not matter what hearsay by what relative is floating around out there. On a side note, can you imagine the controversy if Obama, instead of McCain, had been born in the Panama Canal Zone instead of the State of Hawaii??? No one demands a higher standard of McCain though, do they? Just the Black guy (who was actually born in one of the 50 states!!) has to go the extra mile, huh? > Anyway, this is pure speculation, and my only objection is with the idiots > who claimed the 2007 abstract was the real and only birth certificate. I > have no qualms with Obama (unless the stock market remains at it current > levels or lower after he takes office). The 2007 abstract is the only legally necessary evidence of his birth. > He should not have to prove himself to a higher standard than anyone else > does. It does not matter what hearsay by what relative is floating around > out there. Obama is not being held to a higher standard. McCain has produced his original birth certificate (how else do you think we know that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone?), and any candidate must provide proof if challenged by a state official who is qualifying a candidate for inclusion on the ballot. > On a side note, can you imagine the controversy if Obama, instead of > McCain, had been born in the Panama Canal Zone instead of the State of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Black guy (who was actually born in one of the 50 states!!) has to go the > extra mile, huh? Is it really that hard to give the State of Hawaii permission to release his original birth certificate? Not exactly going the extra mile. In most cases these matters are part of the public record and anyone can get the information about a birth certificate, but apparently Hawaii no longer provides it to the public because of identity theft concerns. The laws is different if both parents are US citizens, as is the case in McCain's case with his mother and father. Also, the Panama Canal Zone was under the jurisdiction of the US at that time and he was born on a US military base. Obama, on the other hand, was born of only one parent who was a US citizen, and the law is different for that case "if" he were born outside the US (I am not saying he was born outside the US). > The 2007 abstract is the only legally necessary evidence of his birth. I think we all agree that Obama was born, but I think you mean "where he was born." The courts may agree with agree with you on that one. But there must be some reason why he will not release his original birth certificate. I am not sure his parents really were married at his birth. >> He should not have to prove himself to a higher standard than anyone else >> does. It does not matter what hearsay by what relative is floating [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > But there must be some reason why he will not release his original birth > certificate. I am not sure his parents really were married at his birth. You probably like to watch your neighbors through binoculars. Get a life. Get a hobby. >>>>> My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. >>>>> Otherwise, they would've. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the > Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions? Why? Why would it be a waste of Republican money? > If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the > Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign > contributions? I never said he was not eligible, I just said the 2007 document is a certified abstract and not the original (or "true copy") of his birth certificate. For some reason that simple fact has seemed to get some people (including yourself) in a tizzy. As for the "Republican Party" (not sure which specific persons you are talking about), maybe they thought running against Obama was better than running against Hillary? But in any case, there is no way for Republicans to question the validity of his citizenship without seeing the original birth certificate, so how could they possibly have any evidence that is not qualified to serve? >> If it turns out he's not eligible, would you say it's true that the >> Republican party wasted millions of dollars worth of campaign [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > birth certificate, so how could they possibly have any evidence that is > not qualified to serve? You're not sure who I'm referring to when I say "Republican party"????? You must be kidding. Do you think the party has NOTHING to say about who runs for president from their party? Here's who I'm talking about, you idiot: www.gop.com Now, stop wasting time & adding childish clutter to this discussion. > You're not sure who I'm referring to when I say "Republican party"????? > You must be kidding. Do you think the party has NOTHING to say about who > runs for president from their party? The Republican presidential candidate is chosen by primaries in each state. Any qualified voter (even Independents, Democrats, or Communists) can vote in the Republican primaries (although if they vote in the primary of one party, they usually cannot vote in the primary of another party that same year). Now if you were talking about the Democrats where they have caucuses and super-delegates (Democratic Party office holders and other high officials) who have votes at the nominating convention, I could see your point. But the Republican presidential candidate is chosen by the voters in the primaries. Republican party officials only have one vote each in the state where they live, just like anyone else who votes in the primary. >> You're not sure who I'm referring to when I say "Republican party"????? >> You must be kidding. Do you think the party has NOTHING to say about who [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > primaries. Republican party officials only have one vote each in the state > where they live, just like anyone else who votes in the primary. Still waiting for you to reveal the sources of your information on this birth certificate issue. In other words, who is making the biggest stink about it? Sources, please. > Still waiting for you to reveal the sources of your information on this > birth certificate issue. In other words, who is making the biggest stink > about it? > > Sources, please. You are one very sick puppy. I think they forgot to give your shots. >> Still waiting for you to reveal the sources of your information on this >> birth certificate issue. In other words, who is making the biggest stink [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are one very sick puppy. I think they forgot to give your shots. I can only read one message at the time. > > My reason is that the party realized they had nothing to whine about. > > Otherwise, they would've. > > It doesn't matter where or when Obama was born (I believe he was probably > born in Hawaii and is over age 35). He still has to provide evidence that > the meets the qualifications to be president. Why? The election's over. You lost. Stop whining. > I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. > Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. Joe is a Nazi stormtrooper and he likes giving people orders. >> I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. >> Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. > > Joe is a Nazi stormtrooper and he likes giving people orders. It's the only logical thing to do. Everything you've said so far is conjecture. You could eliminate much of the doubt by emailing the Republican party at their web site. You are afraid to do that. I don't blame you. Your theory is pretty shaky, and you're not man enough to admit you're wrong, if that turned out to be the case. > It's the only logical thing to do. Everything you've said so far is > conjecture. You could eliminate much of the doubt by emailing the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and you're not man enough to admit you're wrong, if that turned out to be > the case. I don't understand why the Republican party is a legal authority on this. Even if they were (which is ridiculous), the issue could be re-raised if additional information came to light. Of course everything is conjecture. The reason for that is Obama refuses to release copy of this "true" birth certificate, and will only show people the short abstract he had issued in 2007. My theory is shaky? I am not sure what theory you are talking about. My theory is that there "may be" some embarrassing information on the birth certificate, although he was probably born in Hawaii. I don't know why else he would not release it. I would be man enough to retract my theory if I saw the birth certificate and if I was wrong. >> It's the only logical thing to do. Everything you've said so far is >> conjecture. You could eliminate much of the doubt by emailing the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Even if they were (which is ridiculous), the issue could be re-raised if > additional information came to light. They don't have legal authority. But if you think the party would not provide its candidate with every possible way to take pot shots at the Democratic opponent, you're a bigger moron than I previously realized. > Of course everything is conjecture. The reason for that is Obama refuses > to release copy of this "true" birth certificate, and will only show [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > else he would not release it. I would be man enough to retract my theory > if I saw the birth certificate and if I was wrong. > They don't have legal authority. But if you think the party would not > provide its candidate with every possible way to take pot shots at the > Democratic opponent, you're a bigger moron than I previously realized. There are certain kinds of pot shots that they would rather leave to others or the press to take at their opposition. In any event, even if the Republicans thought there might be a problem with Obama's citizenship, it would be suicidal to make a big deal about it unless they knew for certain that he would be disqualified. I don't think anyone in the Republican Party knows for certain what all the facts are, or even if the facts are known, they don't know how a court would rule about the case. >> They don't have legal authority. But if you think the party would not >> provide its candidate with every possible way to take pot shots at the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Party knows for certain what all the facts are, or even if the facts are > known, they don't know how a court would rule about the case. If what you say is true, then the Republican party is comprised of idiots. Hopefully you did not vote for a Republican. After all, 8 years ago, they provided you with an illiterate boy as a presidential candidate, and a VP candidate who thinks the Constitution was meant for wrapping fish. You keep saying that but when we ask you to tell us what part of the Constitution do you THINK was effected, you can never show us your "Source." I wonder why? >>> They don't have legal authority. But if you think the party would not >>> provide its candidate with every possible way to take pot shots at the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > <sniped> a VP candidate who thinks the Constitution was meant for > wrapping fish. I *did* provide that information at least 2-3 times in the past. You either missed it or dissed it. Anyone who studied civics in high school can answer the question. You must've failed civics. You should complain about that to your dad if you have any idea who he is. > You keep saying that but when we ask you to tell us what part of the > Constitution do you THINK was effected, you can never show us your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> <sniped> a VP candidate who thinks the Constitution was meant for >> wrapping fish. > You keep saying that but when we ask you to tell us what part of the > Constitution do you THINK was effected, you can never show us your "Source." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I cannot believe you rightwingnuts are still wrapped around the axle with this deadend topic. > I cannot believe you rightwingnuts are still wrapped around the axle with > this deadend topic. Looks like you are obsessed enough to post about it also. Just out of curiosity, are there any topics here that are not dead-end? EGR values? Accord vs Camry? Sludge? Please tell me. >> I cannot believe you rightwingnuts are still wrapped around the axle with >> this deadend topic. > > Looks like you are obsessed enough to post about it also. Nah. We're just having fun with YOU. > > I intend to keep repeating it until one of the whiners actually does it. > > Until then, it's not an issue. You know that. > > Joe is a Nazi stormtrooper and he likes giving people orders. LOL, except his X . SignatureFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx > > "Mark A" wrote: > > I am not sure what to believe. If Obama was actually born in Hawaii (and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > B~ B. Peg? more like B. Buttplug. > <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote: > B. Peg? more like B. Buttplug. Spoken like a true low IQ liberal gay democrat. Mack > > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > B. Peg? more like B. Buttplug. > > Spoken like a true low IQ liberal gay democrat. > > Mack Ha! You used your real email account. I'm an Independent with a 135 IQ. You're the guy who can tell if a guy is gay because his dick tastes like sh.t. If your IQ is 135, why don't you know the difference between cavalry and Calvary? And why are you so stupid in every other facet of your dialog? On Nov 20, 1:25 pm, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ha! You used your real email account. I'm an Independent with a 135 > IQ. You're the guy who can tell if a guy is gay because his dick > tastes like sh.t. > If your IQ is 135, why don't you know the difference between cavalry > and Calvary? And why are you so stupid in every other facet of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > IQ. You're the guy who can tell if a guy is gay because his dick > > tastes like sh.t. Why do you sit there obsessing over Obama's birth certificate? In article <48f5de12-c214-4675-b4b1-b2695e67c2ad@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > If your IQ is 135, why don't you know the difference between cavalry > > and Calvary? And why are you so stupid in every other facet of your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do you sit there obsessing over Obama's birth certificate? Wouldn't you like to have the truth? I would. SignatureFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Karl Marx >Why do you sit there obsessing over Obama's birth certificate? You got the wrong Mark bozo. Can't you read? > > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > B. Peg? more like B. Buttplug. > > Spoken like a true low IQ liberal gay democrat. > > Mack >Ha! You used your real email account. I'm an Independent with a 135 >IQ. You're the guy who can tell if a guy is gay because his dick >tastes like sh.t. Ouch!! lol! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.