Posted on 12/13/2008 3:36:19 AM PST by IbJensen
You have your reasons we have ours, ours at least should be allowed to see the full weight of the law before it is abandoned.
Just like Al Gore’s was.
Can you point out to me where the difference between natural born citizen and citizen at birth is defined? What section of the Constitution? What relevant law? What Supreme Court decision? Thank you in advance.
The folks who passed the 20th amendment were lunatics? No; that would be the folks who can’t accept that Obama was born in Hawaii (or that he won.)
***I am among them. I know that he won the election. The constitution says clearly that a person can win the election, be president elect, and yet STILL fail to qualify. So we’re digging into the process of determining qualification of a president elect, especially in light of the fact that there are over a dozen lawsuits filed saying that he isn’t qualified. Two of those have gotten considered & dismissed by the Supreme Court, the two that were independent of the forged CoLB evidence. So the only path remaining is the consideration of forgery and obfuscation on the path to zer0bama qualifying. This is a constitutional issue (crisis, really), this is a constitutional website, and you are deriding us? Who do you think you are?
8 years of lefty nutcases declaring that W was illegitimate have done serious harm to the republic.
***I haven’t detected any harm, certainly not serious harm to our republic. Outline your case for such harm. Those lefty nutcases kept trying to redefine what the definition of a vote was so that they could throw out votes or generate them from thin air in the hopes that a recount would favor their candidate. The Florida Supreme court violated its own constitution and the SCOTUS rightfully intervened. I’ll point out here that the damage to the process may possibly be that the SCOTUS got a bloody nose from the politics of the process and now no longer have the courage to stand up for the constitution. We cannot tell yet whether this has really damaged our republic; the supreme court has lifetime appointment for just such considerations, to be free from political consequences.
I’m not going to follow their example.
***They brought their cases to the supreme court and they lost. Their example only comes out when you consider how they acted AFTER they lost, not BEFORE. So why don’t you just keep your mouth shut until their example is VALID?
Obama is wrong about almost everything, but he’s going to be president;
***Interesting crystal ball you’ve got there, Mr. Magoo.
there are lots of good reasons to oppose him, but the BC business isn’t one of them.
***Then why don’t you outline exactly why the framers of the constitution put it in there that a president elect may fail to qualify? It was a good reason for them but not for you. Again, in that context I ask: This is a constitutional issue (crisis, really), this is a constitutional website, and you are deriding us? Who do you think you are?
Item 1: As to the “digging”: mostly addressed in prior posts, but I’ve looked at the forgery claims, they don’t pass the smell test (see earlier post for definition of “smell test.”). I was accused of being insufficiently conservative, (or lazy, or something) in this thread almost from the get-go. That’s usually a clue for me that rational debate is unlikely. Indignant, condescending, self-righteous certitude often prompts my derision. (And this is a conservative website, not a strictly constitutional one.)
Item 2: The harm comes from the degeneration of the level of debate. Issues take a back seat to “gotcha” games. So crazed were the lefties, they failed to notice that, aside from taxes and abortion, Bush was not governing as a conservative most of the time. But they hated him anyway. Which leads to...
Item 3: If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put your foot in it. If all the folks who are raising this issue now will be satisfied after the last court case is finally denied, that’ll be wonderful. Given some of the rhetoric I’ve seen in this thread and elsewhere, and your expressed doubt about SCOTUS’s “courage”, I’m not optimistic; it’s already looking like BDS is being supplanted by ODS. So no thank you, I won’t keep my mouth shut.
Item 4: I might consider a small wager (that’d be one way to have something to look forward to on Jan 20.)
Item 5: It’s possible for a president-elect to fail to qualify; that’s not the issue here, IMO. As to who I think I am: for your purposes, I’m a long standing member of this forum, as are you. Beyond that, I owe you no explanation.
Item 1: As to the “digging”: mostly addressed in prior posts, but I’ve looked at the forgery claims, they don’t pass the smell test (see earlier post for definition of “smell test.”).
***Wherever your earlier post is, you did not define “smell test” on this thread. In fact, you’ve been taken to task for your sense of truth smell. So you’ll need to point to the FReeper usable definition of smell test if you want us to use it and if you want to be above reproach for relying upon it. The fact that you have not done so is evidence of intent for obfuscation on your part.
I was accused of being insufficiently conservative, (or lazy, or something) in this thread almost from the get-go.
***Okay, now we’re later into the thread and I am accusing you of both.
That’s usually a clue for me that rational debate is unlikely. Indignant, condescending, self-righteous certitude often prompts my derision.
***Look at what you just said. You, being the sole-appointed judge of rational debate have decided that it is not there and so you decide it’s okay to engage in derision. Look at yourself! You are a charicature of a good conservative. Engage in rational debate even when you see irrational debate. That’s what I’m doing — with YOU.
(And this is a conservative website, not a strictly constitutional one.)
***It is both. So don’t throw out the constitutionalist component.
Item 2: The harm comes from the degeneration of the level of debate.
***That’s a slight harm, and it seems to be confined to a corner of conservatism such as this website, not to the whole republic as you claim. Your own elaboration argues against your original claim. Learn to reason, take a critical thinking class, and refrain from judging rationality of debate because you do not possess the proper skillset to do judge.
Issues take a back seat to “gotcha” games. So crazed were the lefties, they failed to notice that, aside from taxes and abortion, Bush was not governing as a conservative most of the time.
***Interesting stuff about lefties, but now it’s righties you’re talking about and we are much different. Your analogy falls apart.
But they hated him anyway. Which leads to...
***We can’t stop them from hating him, but we can stop their lies and hoodwinking.
Item 3: If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put your foot in it.
***That doesn’t make any sense, and your attempt at applying it falls flat. The reason is because of your present tense case of “shoe—not fitting now” versus the future tense case of “if they’ll be satisfied”. It is a classic fallacy of improper analogy. Take that critical thinking class.
If all the folks who are raising this issue now will be satisfied after the last court case is finally denied, that’ll be wonderful.
***There’s no argument here. It’s a future case, and you’re deriding people NOW as if they will not react properly in the future. If you can’t see the fallacy in that line of reasoning, there is little hope for you.
Given some of the rhetoric I’ve seen in this thread and elsewhere, and your expressed doubt about SCOTUS’s “courage”, I’m not optimistic; it’s already looking like BDS is being supplanted by ODS. So no thank you, I won’t keep my mouth shut.
***It looks like the 20th Amendment of the Constitution has ODS because it states that the president elect can fail to qualify. Your assessment of this BDS supplantation of ODS will not even take place until well after January 9th, so by your own reasoning you should be keeping your mouth shut until then. Let the constitution speak.
Item 4: I might consider a small wager (that’d be one way to have something to look forward to on Jan 20.)
***I’ve been trying very hard to get Intrade to post contracts. https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/2279.page
Maybe you should post there alongside all the other liberals, that way you don’t look like you’re pretending to be conservative.
Item 5: It’s possible for a president-elect to fail to qualify; that’s not the issue here, IMO.
***IMO? That’s EXACTLY the issue here and yet you’re deriding fellow freepers because of your self-perceived judgement of lack of rationality? You’re the one who’s being irrational. You are the one who deserves derision and scorn.
As to who I think I am: for your purposes, I’m a long standing member of this forum, as are you. Beyond that, I owe you no explanation.
***That is one of the things I’ve tried to change because there are a lot of RINOs who hide behind the coattails of conservatism, which is what I suspect you are. We had the bugzapper thread where many of them committed freepercide, but there’s still an infestation and JimRob shows no inclination to deal with it. I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that you would be unwilling to participate in an idealogy litmus matrix. And you’re right, you owe me now explanation, just like all the other cockroach RINOs who are hiding in the shadows. Talk about damage to the forum — and to the republic. 20% of those RINOs voted for Obama.
“...Maybe you should post there alongside all the other liberals, that way you don’t look like you’re pretending to be conservative... You are the one who deserves derision and scorn...That is one of the things I’ve tried to change because there are a lot of RINOs who hide behind the coattails of conservatism, which is what I suspect you are. We had the bugzapper thread where many of them committed freepercide, but there’s still an infestation and JimRob shows no inclination to deal with it. I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that you would be unwilling to participate in an idealogy litmus matrix. And you’re right, you owe me now explanation, just like all the other cockroach RINOs who are hiding in the shadows...”
“Idealogy litmus matrix,” huh?
Hey, thanks for the “rational debate,” and the critical thinking lecture too! Good luck with that litmus matrix.
Buh-bye.
Yup. That one seems to scare the cockroaches. Buh bye.
Give it up.
NO!! This is NOT going to go away!!!
Worst political mess? The birth certificate thing? Hardly.
This is not a birth certificate THING...this is a Constitution THING...you know, that stupid little piece of paper that gives you your rights and freedoms as a US citizen.
you know, that stupid little piece of paper that gives you your rights and freedoms as a US citizen.
***I’m amazed at how many FReepers don’t see that. They’re much more interested in the game sport of politics than in constitutionalism and the meaning of our republic.
Again, give it up. There’s real work to be done.
What better work than to protect what has protected us for so many years??? The Constitution has been nibbled at from the toes up for years....now it will be destroyed at the head...the top..put a fraud in the White House who has an alligence to Britain....didn’t we already fight them once and kick them out???
Barak Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen...he is a US Citizen but he does not have the Constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States!!!
You aren’t seeing the forest for the trees!!
I’ll be sure to look you up when the riots begin. I’m sure you’ll be easy to find ... hole up behind the obamanoid police force. Go back to DU if you think issuing threats, vailed or otherwise, will stop some from opposing this usurpation of the Constitution. BTW, your nametag seems ‘off the mark’, agitprop. Your affirmative action fraud is not more important than the Constitution, not yet anyway.
***I’m amazed at how many FReepers don’t see that. They’re much more interested in the game sport of politics than in constitutionalism and the meaning of our republic.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. I accepted Clinton as my president for 8 yrs. I would accept Clinton AGAIN in comparison to THIS!! This move shreds the Constitution right to the core. It has nothing to do with WHO won..it has to do with the Constitutional qualifications for Obama to be there...BY LAW, the LAW of this land..”WE THE PEOPLE” land..not mob rule. WE vote with in the constraints of our Constitution!! The Constitution was put in place to PROTECT us, by men far wiser than we are this day and it has!!
This will be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated, anywhere, anytime in history.
Zero is absolutely hiding somthing BIG. His actions in hiding this simple document, show he is dishonest and probably not Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.
His plan, stall and hope no one finds out, get in office, and hope the issue goes away.
I don’t think so Zero! You have not proven a basic requirement to hold that office. No birth certificate, no peace. Illegal usurper will occupy The White House. Not my president,no way, no how.
Agreed. The test of a constitutionalist is to ask if they would accept Hillary Clinton as president should Obama be found to be Disqualified and the proper constitutional procedures were found for a suitable replacement. I would accept her (assuming the constitution was followed) because the republic can survive another Clintoon but it cannot survive this knifeblade to the heart of the constitution.
Take some medication.
The democraps won the election. They will get to decide the White House final occupant, as it should be for winning. But I too do not believe this abrogation of the We The People contract—our Constitution—can survive with an affirmative action poseur allowed into office without proving he is eligible for the job he lusts over.
Put some ice on yours.
Love to. At work, though. They frown on the adult beverage here. But I’d suggest to any of you out there all upset about this birth certificate issue to up the meds and go see you mental health care expert immediately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.