• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Associated Press: Arizona Senate Approves 'Birther' Bill

:lamo This is OBVIOUSLY about President Obama. Let's not insult one another's intelligence by pretending otherwise.

Hey I've got a great idea for a law! If any ex-governors of Massachusetts want to run for president, they have to prove that they've never been polygamous. Of course, I'm not referring to any SPECIFIC person, this is about all presidents. :roll:

No.

It's obvioulsy about ballot access for all future presidential candidates.

Or did you see the name "obama" in the law?
 
Actually, only people worried that their favorite candidate won't be able to register in Arizona would be bothered by a law that does nothing but stipulate a candidate prove his eligibility for an office before being allowed on the ballot.

But just think, this will keep Arnold Schwarzenegger from running in Arizona. Perhaps Arizona saw what Arnold Kennedy Schwarzenegger did to California and don't want him campaigning for president in their state?

:lamo

No, not at all. And Arnold would not ahve been allowed to run without the law. Agian, the law does nothing. It only adds to the paper work an unneeded layer.
 
The point is!! It makes perfect sense that any candidate for President of the United States should be formally vetted. What's so damned odd about that? Shouldn't candidates have to prove their eligibility?? Come on, make a case for why it doesn't make sense they should have to do so in a formal manner. I'll wait.


Because they're unhappy that this law will prevent Obama from registering his candidacy in Arizona.

if it won't do that, the Mayor cannot see what their problem is.
 
I'd also like this opportunity to ask this rather important question.

How does coming out of a ***** in Detroit make one more qualified to lead the United States?

It doesn't but it's the law.
 
Because they're unhappy that this law will prevent Obama from registering his candidacy in Arizona.

if it won't do that, the Mayor cannot see what their problem is.

That too would be wrong. Obama will not have a problem registering.
 
:lamo

No, not at all. And Arnold would not ahve been allowed to run without the law. Agian, the law does nothing. It only adds to the paper work an unneeded layer.

Without the law, what criteria would Arizona have been able to point to, formally, to deny him the opportunity to register?

The Arizona law does nothing to but codify a requirement to establish grounds for rejection.

In 2008, Arnold could have registered his campaign in Arizona and the state's response would have been "hey, you can't run, we read in People magazine that you were born in Austria." But what if the candidate was Arnold Horowitz, born in Prague to an American mother and a Czech pianist who then flew to New York the next day, where they were issued a certificate of live birth? Nobody's ever heard of Arnold Horowitz (because the Mayor just invented him), so how would an Arizona election official know to reject his candidacy, if he's not required to produce a birth certificate showing his nation of origin?

You people are pretending this is about Obama simply because Obama's failure to produce a legitimate birth certificate prompted the law. If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.
 
That too would be wrong. Obama will not have a problem registering.

Then explain your problem with requiring applicants to demonstrate compliance with the Constituitonal requirements.

Outside of very broad Constitutional amendments regulating the age and sex of voters, the Constitution allows the states to determine ballot access. There's no discrimination issue here, ALL candidates must comply. All valid candidates can comply without problem.

So what's your problem?
 
Then explain your problem with requiring applicants to demonstrate compliance with the Constituitonal requirements.

Outside of very broad Constitutional amendments regulating the age and sex of voters, the Constitution allows the states to determine ballot access. There's no discrimination issue here, ALL candidates must comply. All valid candidates can comply without problem.

So what's your problem?

I've told you the problem. This was already done, and there was no need for further legislation. We were not ahving a problem at all. It's silliness and unneccessary.
 
Without the law, what criteria would Arizona have been able to point to, formally, to deny him the opportunity to register?

The Arizona law does nothing to but codify a requirement to establish grounds for rejection.

In 2008, Arnold could have registered his campaign in Arizona and the state's response would have been "hey, you can't run, we read in People magazine that you were born in Austria." But what if the candidate was Arnold Horowitz, born in Prague to an American mother and a Czech pianist who then flew to New York the next day, where they were issued a certificate of live birth? Nobody's ever heard of Arnold Horowitz (because the Mayor just invented him), so how would an Arizona election official know to reject his candidacy, if he's not required to produce a birth certificate showing his nation of origin?

You people are pretending this is about Obama simply because Obama's failure to produce a legitimate birth certificate prompted the law. If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.

The same as the do before the law, the same reason Aronald couldn't run, you always had to be a citizen. Your law changes nothing.
 
If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.
I think that in the post you are responding to is the answer to your question:
It only adds to the paper work an unneeded layer.
Personally, I don't think the law will do what it's supporters and detractors think it will do. It seems pretty blown out of proportion to me. Yeah, it's a waste of time and effort, but I don't think it really hurts anything. It won't quiet the people who have already decided to believe that Obama wasn't born in the US.
It WILL get Seel et al the current publicity that they enjoy.
 
Ok.

I stepped away from the racism.

My point is.

Those who attack Obama on his citizenship are 99.9% of the Right wing persuasion.

Not people to usually go after "their" own president.

We can't say what really might have happened if McCain were president, but my guess his citizenship would not have been an issue, that's my only point.

To many, mostly on the right, we think Obama's policies and values are the worst thing we can imagine for this country. Hec, he just said something like, without Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits, we wouldn't be the great country we are today. WTF! Social programs are what made this country great??? I couldn't disagree with this president more on just about every issue.
I think that is the reason some are willing to grab at any straw that might mean he is illegitimate. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
 
Personally, I don't think the law will do what it's supporters and detractors think it will do. It seems pretty blown out of proportion to me. Yeah, it's a waste of time and effort, but I don't think it really hurts anything. It won't quiet the people who have already decided to believe that Obama wasn't born in the US.
It WILL get Seel et al the current publicity that they enjoy.

I agree. I only called it sad because it is a waste of time and effort and won't really change anything.
 
Without the law, what criteria would Arizona have been able to point to, formally, to deny him the opportunity to register?

The Arizona law does nothing to but codify a requirement to establish grounds for rejection.

In 2008, Arnold could have registered his campaign in Arizona and the state's response would have been "hey, you can't run, we read in People magazine that you were born in Austria." But what if the candidate was Arnold Horowitz, born in Prague to an American mother and a Czech pianist who then flew to New York the next day, where they were issued a certificate of live birth? Nobody's ever heard of Arnold Horowitz (because the Mayor just invented him), so how would an Arizona election official know to reject his candidacy, if he's not required to produce a birth certificate showing his nation of origin?

You people are pretending this is about Obama simply because Obama's failure to produce a legitimate birth certificate prompted the law. If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.
The law is unnecessary, I am sure when a candidate files to run for president, the candidate must file the proper documentation at the Federal level. Determining who can legally run for president is not a right states have.
 
He did NOT have to show his COLB or whatever. Further, based on the link you provided, his birth certificate didn't exist at all anywhere until he was 60 years old.

The Eisenhower case proves that a simple birth certificate is ample to prove one's eligibility to be PotUSA.

No, the artical said he had never needed it until he decided to run for POTUS. There are special requirements for that job.
 
You know the irony is I think this could actually come to inhibit some GOP candidates more than Obama. It would be hilarious if the Republican nominee couldn't get his name on the ballot in Arizona because he didn't have the paperwork.
 
No, the artical said he had never needed it until he decided to run for POTUS. There are special requirements for that job.
from the link

Ike needed birth certificate to run for president / September 22, 2010 / Sonoran News
The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office.

Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican presidential candidate was born in a house at the corner of Lamar and Day streets in nearby Denison.​
 
The law is unnecessary, I am sure when a candidate files to run for president, the candidate must file the proper documentation at the Federal level. Determining who can legally run for president is not a right states have.

How did Roger Colero, a Nicaraguan national, born in Nicaragua to Nicaraguan parents get allowed on the ballots of states to run for president back in 08? He was not a natural born citizen at all.
 
Last edited:
To many, mostly on the right, we think Obama's policies and values are the worst thing we can imagine for this country.

The worst things imaginable for this country are not located in either of the two main political parties.
 
To many, mostly on the right, we think Obama's policies and values are the worst thing we can imagine for this country. Hec, he just said something like, without Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits, we wouldn't be the great country we are today. WTF! Social programs are what made this country great??? I couldn't disagree with this president more on just about every issue.
I think that is the reason some are willing to grab at any straw that might mean he is illegitimate. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

While it is true that a large portion of the issues people have are with his policies, the constant accusing him of being a Muslim or of being a racist bring race into play at least to some extent.

The problem I have is that most issues people take with him have nothing to do with his actual policy (which there is plenty to take issue with) but with half-baked conspiracy theories such as that he is a Fascist-Communist-Muslim extremist (completely ignoring that all 3 are mutually exclusive stances) or that he was born in Kenya or that he's the anti-christ.

Bush was a drunkard and coke-head whose wife killed a man. But still, for the most part, his critics stuck to actual policy issues to explain why he was a bad president.
 
You people are pretending this is about Obama simply because Obama's failure to produce a legitimate birth certificate prompted the law. If, as you people claim, Obama has a real birth certificate, can you explain what your problem is? You're failing to demonstrate any semblance of rational thought on this issue.
Of course it's about Obama. If it wasn't, the law wouldn't rule out short form birth certificates. I find it amazing that they'll accept a certification of baptism or circumcision, neither of which establishes where a person is born, but they won't accept an official document of a person's birth record from a state unless it specifies which hospital they are born in and who the doctor was.
 
That is wasn't the American people who were talking about his "funny" name or the color of his skin. He was drawing attention to those things himself.

He drew attention to it because he recognized it as something that is unfamiliar and he knew others could relate to him. Him drawing attention to it doesn't mean that other people hadn't already noticed or wouldn't think of it as an issue. Many Americans are xenophobic and there are certainly people who suspicions of his birth place and religion are supplemented by a fear of the "funny name".
 
Ever notice that Arizona is becoming more and more ridiculous and nobody is following their lead? Arizona is quickly replacing Texas as the clown-state of the Union.
 
Of course it's about Obama. If it wasn't, the law wouldn't rule out short form birth certificates. I find it amazing that they'll accept a certification of baptism or circumcision, neither of which establishes where a person is born, but they won't accept an official document of a person's birth record from a state unless it specifies which hospital they are born in and who the doctor was.

.....because the certificate of baptism states which church they were baptized in and who the state-recognized clergy member was.

I'm no birther, but that lil tid-bit is fairly obvious, just like the piece of trivia a few posts back on how a state can tell the Fed what to do. This is basic common knowledge.
 
Ever notice that Arizona is becoming more and more ridiculous and nobody is following their lead? Arizona is quickly replacing Texas as the clown-state of the Union.

I blame it on my X, 'cuz that's the state she ran to when fleeing someone who doesn't exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom