• 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!

Obama to speak on birth certificate

Difference is j, a good number of us put down the Bush was behind 9/11 nonsense. Hell, at WS we even banned a good bit of the Bush is Hitler nonsense. Look around here and many who claim to be reasonable conservatives are excusing the Birther nonsense. I think that shows a difference. Don't you?



That's wasn't how I remembered WS. :roll:
 
j, Surely you can check with those banned and those who banned. We pulled a Bush is Hitler thread, denounced Moveon for their ad, and Banned a few who wouldn't stop. It caused a lot of debate amongst us.

And I always said the bush was behind 9/11 nonsense was nonsense. You know that if you have any honest memory at all.

But I'm not talking about ignoring. You guys are actively defending. That is even worse.

give me some examples of conservatives "actively defending" ANY of the Kenyan, Muslim nonsense.


j-mac
 
Well, that is convenient for you eh? Able to throw a statement out there without any real documentation to back it up, fore we all know that WS is long gone, and nothing retrievable. As I recall it, when the Bush name calling, and nonsense was prevalent very few got called out publicly for their postings by other libs. Most were just ignored, much the same as this situation.

j-mac


that's what I remember, bush=hitler was common, and those on the right were often threatened. I left that place unceremoniously after being bored off of it.
 
Actually, those born in a military hospital on an American post in a foreign country are deemed to be natural born citizens, because the land that the post is on is considered to be American soil.

Try again.

j-mac

He still graduated the bottom of his class and was known for being an atheist in his youth...
 
Actually no, he was brought up to show the hypocracy. There was no serious challenege to McCain. And it doesn't matter who brough it up first. The question applies to all who brought it up.

So birfers are racist, but the ghandi is a gas attendent hillary, who started the birther nonsense is not.


Seriously?
 
That's wasn't how I remembered WS. :roll:

No doubt. But just as conservatives always see a liberal bias in the media, and liberals always see a conservative bias in the media. your view is likely effected by your own bias. But having been involved in all the discussions that took place there, consitantly told by liberals that we're treating the unfairly and favoring conservatives, and always told by conservatives that we're treating them unfairly and favoring liberals, well, one gets used to the whining after awhile. The fact is we did just what I said we did.
 
Last edited:
Well, that is convenient for you eh? Able to throw a statement out there without any real documentation to back it up, fore we all know that WS is long gone, and nothing retrievable. As I recall it, when the Bush name calling, and nonsense was prevalent very few got called out publicly for their postings by other libs. Most were just ignored, much the same as this situation.

j-mac

The birthers have no proof either...
 
So birfers are racist, but the ghandi is a gas attendent hillary, who started the birther nonsense is not.


Seriously?

I ahven't said anyone IS racist. But I have said the question of why has to be asked of ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE, who for more of Obama than anyone else. Read for comprehension.
 
No doubt. But just a sconservatives always see a liberal bias in the media, and liberals always see a conservative bias in the media. your view is likely effected by your own bias. But having been involved in all the discussions that took place there, consitantly told by liberals that we're treating the unfairly and favoring conservatives, and always told by conservatives that we're treating them unfairly and favoring liberals, well, one gets used to the whining after awhile. The fact is we did just what I said we did.



I don't see that here. :shrug:


If you want to argue whistlestopper, lets do it in a different thread.
 
I am aware of that, and nobody on the left turned it into an issue either...

Sorry, this is simply untrue.

Origins of the claims
People who express doubts about Obama's eligibility or reject details about his early life are often informally called "birthers", a term that parallels[15] the nickname "truthers" for adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[16]

During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary campaign. These and numerous other chain e-mails during the subsequent presidential election circulated false rumors about Obama's origin, religion and birth certificate.[17] [18]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revising history will no longer work, we have the interwebs.


j-mac
 
I ahven't said anyone IS racist. But I have said the question of why has to be asked of ALL, EVERY SINGLE ONE, who for more of Obama than anyone else. Read for comprehension.



then state what you are thinking, show the intestinal fortitude of your positions, you fool no one.
 
I don't see that here. :shrug:


If you want to argue whistlestopper, lets do it in a different thread.

I only want to argue the point. You guys are defending Birthers when you should not. Few members anywhere actually defended the nutters of the 9/11 conspiracy.
 
Political Compass ~ (2,-2), The Cool Quad

And...

Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:


"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[30]

The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by 'jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the "United States"? This does not affect citizenship via 'jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[31] The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."[32] This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents.

According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the "natural born" requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.[29]
Natural Born Citizen Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That link has other presidents who it was an issue for as well. I thought military bases were jus soli.
 
then state what you are thinking, show the intestinal fortitude of your positions, you fool no one.

I have stated exactly what I'm thinking. I would like to see a rational explianation. I have not seen one. Until then, it remains a question.
 
As I understand it, he needs to prove that he actually earned his education, and it wasn't all about affirmative action.

Well, that and the religion issue. Is he a Muslim, or a Christian who attended a church led by an anti American radical? It's a difficult decision to make.

Maybe he's a Muslim plant in an anti American church. Yeah, that's it.
 
I'm very disappointed that US military bases are not jus soli (philosophically, as a patriot) and I apologize to those who I was smug with about it.

We need a "Damn, I was wrong" thread, where people can repent.
 
I'm very disappointed that US military bases are not jus soli (philosophically, as a patriot) and I apologize to those who I was smug with about it.

We need a "Damn, I was wrong" thread, where people can repent.

Believe me, very few posters here possess the honesty to actually be able to use it.
 
He still graduated the bottom of his class and was known for being an atheist in his youth...

so what? The reports were that McCain was rather a jokester in school, and not the best of students, but he distinguished himself in the war, and Senate. He still didn't win, so that point is now moot.


j-mac
 
1075 posts in and I'm just getting started, so let me just make my peace.

Obama was almost certainly a citizen. The problem was the almost part. It could have easily been proven to be true if this form had been released to the public when the question arose. Why did it take two and a half years for the chosen one to bow down to the people's request? I think the answer is in the question. None of this would have been an issue if Obama had seen fit to just show us the birth certificate. He kept the issue alive and even gave the issue credence by not addressing it. Further, he handled the issue in a rather classless manner by degraded the people that wanted to insure the constitution was being followed. There was no need for that, but he did show us why liberals get the stereotype of being elitists. It was as if he was beyond reproach. As if questioning him on the matter of being constitutionally eligible for the position was improper. After all, he is Barack Hussein Obama II and no one shall question his holiness.

Don't get me wrong...I'm glad he was a haughty ass in his presentation. It allowed the rest of America to see what I've known since he burst onto the political scene. I just wish they had seen it sooner so we could have avoided the economic nightmare that is the last 2 years.
 
Then it should be no problem for either of you to provide examples. And Joe, you should really know better.

j-mac

Well, you can start by going to Ptif's profile and do a search of his posts
 
Back
Top Bottom