![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/ ... index.html
Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean
I would support the idea of each candidate submitting a portfolio of documentation.Mr. Mephistopheles wrote:There are several good videos on YouTube setting the birfers, or as one YouTube poster put it "hoaxtards", in their place.
Here's Dobbs and Hannity perpetuating this nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnvrBtK ... annel_page
Here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlohGsR ... re=channel Does anybody here live in Campbell's district?
The "birfer" rantings have no basis in reality. Any person with normal intelligence and even a modicum of integrity has see there is no controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate. Calling the birfers nuts is completely appropriate, and probably a little too reserved.
UGA Lawdog wrote:Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.
I agree. It would be part of the "job application" for office X. Had your suggestion been in effect 2 years ago, we wouldn't be having the "birfer" debate here today. Who am I kidding...ASITStands wrote:I would support the idea of each candidate submitting a portfolio of documentation.Mr. Mephistopheles wrote:There are several good videos on YouTube setting the birfers, or as one YouTube poster put it "hoaxtards", in their place.
Here's Dobbs and Hannity perpetuating this nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRnvrBtK ... annel_page
Here's another: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIlohGsR ... re=channel Does anybody here live in Campbell's district?
The "birfer" rantings have no basis in reality. Any person with normal intelligence and even a modicum of integrity has see there is no controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate. Calling the birfers nuts is completely appropriate, and probably a little too reserved.
It's as simple as "providing evidence sufficient to stand in a court of law proving eligibility for the office the candidate seeks." It would have to be done at the State level.
You're one to talk. Now you want to be reasonable?UGA Lawdog wrote:Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.
Dok, I understand you're in the market for a new Irony Meter and a shop vac to suction up the scattered remains of your recently departed unit.Doktor Avalanche wrote:You're one to talk. Now you want to be reasonable?UGA Lawdog wrote:Yes, why respond with logic and facts when you can just call your opponents nuts? Ad hominem attacks are what you need. Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic.
It's worth keeping in mind that, a mere four years ago, a LOT of these same people were pushing "the Arnold Amendment" to eliminate the natural-born requirement altogether so Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President. Over the last 20 years or so there have been several law review articles to the effect that the natural-born requirement is probably the least sensible provision in the Constitution, at last in the period after the mid-20th century.Lambkin wrote:I would eliminate the birth requirement entirely. It is no more useful than saying that only red-haired women can be president.
That's a perfect analogy because I'm sure there would be some contingent out there demanding proof that she was indeed a natural born red-head.Lambkin wrote:I would eliminate the birth requirement entirely. It is no more useful than saying that only red-haired women can be president.
That is demonstrably wrong as the BC produced by Obama is prima facie evidence.Chemnor wrote: Birth record that Obama showed us would not have passed the test.
How come can't we see the Certified copy?
Since the verbicide does not fit within your "perceived reality", it is worthless, but the Constitution, for me, is not a worthless document.Chemnor wrote: But what does it matter anyway? The Constitution has not been followed for 100 years. This would just be one more violation of the worthless document that was killed by judicial verbicide long ago.
It does not matter, not for the reason you say but because the candidate with the most popular support won. That's how it works and griping about it is just sour grapes. You have to trust that the voters will do what is best according to their own reasoning, and you happen to be in the minority on this question. That means your candidate (if you have one) couldn't win in 2008.Chemnor wrote:But what does it matter anyway?
Like that ever stopped you.UGA Lawdog wrote: Shhhhhh. The educated people are talking.
Bullsh*t.Chemnor wrote:But I did go to make sure my daughter had the right Birth Certificate when she went to apply for a passport today and the Birth record that Obama showed us would not have passed the test.