• 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!

Filing charges of Treason against Obama?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I think the Supreme Court is more aware of the issue than you are. They saw no case in challenging Obama's qualifications.

Those on the Supreme Court are humans (put there by other humans) and as humans are prone to human error, just like (but not necessarily on the same scale as) everyone else. :D just saying.
 
I'm only coming into this thread to grab a seat, start eating my popcorn, and watch RightatNYU enter the thread and completely destroy you guys again, just like he did last time this particular silly argument was made. :mrgreen:

Who left the dungeon door open?:lol:

Is he going to destroy us with good old-fashioned debate skills or cheat and use his mod hammer?:mrgreen:
 
That's what I've been saying all along.... you retards just won't look at the evidence, but keep spouting your ignorant, uninformed bile. Thanx for admitting it. :thumbs:

Let's watch the name calling. Don't want any unnecessary infractions for anyone over a silly little thread...
 
I know it's Canada Free Press, but still, the guy will be delivering his evidence on Dec. 1. Enjoy. Now, before I get the usual liberal ****storm, please remember I"m just posting this article to hear everyone's response. I'm not going to take a side right away because I want to get some good debates going and hear what you all have to say.

Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury

Really? You can't figure this one out for yourself? You need us to explain it to you?

In a word -- Moronic. (the story, not you)
 
Really? You can't figure this one out for yourself? You need us to explain it to you?

In a word -- Moronic. (the story, not you)

Excuse me for trying to take an initial stance of neutrality on a subject I'm not particularly well versed in. :D
 
Souldn't you be busy defending ACORN or the Global Warming hoax?

He'd have more luck. funny how he won't put his rep. where his mouth is, Oh wait.... he did when he said Right won the last debate. :lamo
 
Last edited:
I find it funny that the only time i ever see you posting has to do with conspiracy theories and birther threads.
:rofl
Then you are not looking hard enough.
Three topics in the Conspiracy section not dealing with Obama's eligibility. Only three. :doh Two of which started there, w/one reply in each. The third got moved there, after I stop participating. Why? I have no idea it wasn't a Conspiracy theory, nor could it be called one.

As for the majority of my posts that are in the Conspiracy area.
The majority of topics dealing with the eligibility issue didn't start in the Conspiracy section, but got moved there and they were not started by me.
I only reply, like you do, to information being provided that is believed to be false.
But of course, this has nothing to do with whether Obama meets the Constitutional requirement.



You keep posting the same wrong information over and over again as if you think you can fool the new people. Ill give you an example. A post recently claiming natural born means born of two citizens et the passage posted stated it only applies to chldren born overseas.
I think you are projecting.
You are the one that thinks they can fool the people with your disinformation, dismissals, ridicule and predilection for being unable to stick to the specifics being discussed.

So where is your example of which you speak?
Make sure you quote me and not someone else.



Yes this is a conspiracy theory you think somehow his parents plotted to secretly install him as president all those years ago. Somehow the state of hawaii which is run by a republican, multiple states all the courts these cases are submitted to, the supreme court are in collusion in this coverup.
:spin:
:rofl
Wow!
I know of no birther that presents said argument.
As convoluted as the above quote appears, they are your thoughts, not mine.



One of your birther heroes, ...
Birther heroes?
Have I ever made the claim that she, or any other birther is my hero?
I think not.
So why don't you just knock off this crap and stick to what is being discussed.



... is in trouble now because she was trying to get people to lie in her affidavits and not tell the truth.
Just another showing of your predilection, but I will address it anyway.
To whom are you referring?
Larry Sinclair? The guy who submitted an affidavit saying that Taitz wanted him to testify that Obama was involved in more murders that he originally claims. The same guy who swears that he had gay sex with Obama, where a latter polygraph examination indicated deception.
Or how about Lucas Smith? The guy who swears he has Obama's original Birth Certificate issued by the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa.
Here is your problem with these.
If you are to accept that their word is true, that Taitz tried unsuccessfully to get them to lie on the stand, then they are truthful people and their is no reason not to accept what they swear to in regards to other specifics. Obama being involved in a murder (Sinclair), and that Smith does indeed possess an actual Birth Certificate in Obama's name.
Now if they are lying about these other specifics, then there is no reason to believe their accusations against Taitz.

So why don't you just knock off this crap and stick to the specifics being discussed?



Now "coolguy" do you have any proof that he wasnt born here or isnt natural born because so far the evidence points to him being.
And again, for purposes of this specific, the Birth Certificate issue does not matter.
Although it takes evidence to establish proof, they are not one in the same.

As for evidence, it points to him not being a 'natural born Citizen' for the Constitutional requirement.



do you have any court cases establishing precedence to back up your claims coolguy?
It is funny that you want me to answer your questions but ignore mine.
The Court cases stating that the term 'natural born Citizen' hasn't been defined by the Constitution have already been provided.
I would ask you for the same, but already knowing that you can not provide anything of relevance, I wont ask.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Why is it ridiculous to ask and demand clarification and proof.

It was demanded of McCain - and Congress had to approve that he could run for office. It was questioned of Lowell Weicker, George Romney . . and others.

"On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." The vote passed 378-0."

Seeing as how they've addressed it in Congress one can understand that It's a legitimate question to ask.

But what people don't realize is that it's been given an answer - and the answer stands as the final ruling on the issue.


Having established how the Congress has ruled on that issue
. . . we can address the specifics of the guy's charges.
Oh wait - there aren't any:
It isn't ridiculous to ask and demand clarification and proof.
But stating that Congress has ruled on the issue is absolutely false.
The resolutions that have been passed are not binding and are not law.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I'm only coming into this thread to grab a seat, start eating my popcorn, and watch RightatNYU enter the thread and completely destroy you guys again, just like he did last time this particular silly argument was made.
Good for you!
But do you mind pointing out exactly which particular argument you are speaking of, and where he destroyed said particular argument? :rofl
That way I can point out to you where you are wrong instead of just telling you that you are.
 
Back
Top Bottom