• 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!

Is the President YOUR President?

Is the President YOUR President?

  • Yes, I always support the President as the leader of my country

    Votes: 26 38.2%

  • No, I'm willing to throw my country under the bus

    Votes: 7 10.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 35 51.5%
  • Total voters
    68
not gonna happen any time soon..
they own the House until at least 2022..
dems will be lucky to hold serve in both chambers next year..
vasuderatorrent said:
Most of us see that coming.
Click to expand...
and Clinton can't beat Christie .
 
APACHERAT said:
Yes she was but she was a little "Red Diaper Baby" slut who got knocked up by a Marxist who wasn't even an American when she was still in high school and only 17 years old.

Here is the problem that surfaced.

>" But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery! The law says:

”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery. One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”..."<


With a Kenyan father Obama
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on 11/29/42; Barack Obama was born on 8/4/61. Dunham was an adult. Your idiotic lies keep spiraling.

Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be president, and no amount of garbage you birthers can chuck at him will change that.

PERIOD. DISCUSSION OVER.

If you honestly believe Obama is not eligible to be president, you are an idiot.

I have never seen such blatantly transparent attempts to move the goalposts in my life. The law you cited doesn't exist.
 
Muhammed said:
Obama was, by his own admission in a book he authored, a "British subject" because his father was also a British subject; ergo, from a legal standpoint he is not eligible to be the president of the USA.

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between a Natural Born Citizen and other citizens.
Click to expand...

Wrong again! I don't care if his father was from MARS. His mother was an American citizen; he was born on American soil. He's eligible. Deal with it.

Birthers are morons.
 
Muhammed said:
:roll:

Translation: I cannot counter your factually based argument, Muhammed.
Click to expand...

Actually, since you posted nothing factual, your "translation" is nonsense.
 
APACHERAT said:
Yes she was but she was a little "Red Diaper Baby" slut who got knocked up by a Marxist who wasn't even an American when she was still in high school and only 17 years old.

Here is the problem that surfaced.

>" But new questions about the status of BHO’s teen age mother Stanley Ann Dunham are surfacing as analysis at another web site is revealing a Congressional rule change for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986 puts in serious doubt Stanley Ann Dunham’s ability to confer citizenship status on her son.

Since Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in 1961, this newly discovered law involves Dunham’s age because she was only 18 at time of delivery! The law says:

”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status according to blog discovery. One commenter said, “She was not old enough to register Obama’s birth in Hawaii or anywhere else in the U.S. as a Natural Born Citizen as she did not meet the residency requirements! Backing this statement up, another commenter reiterates:” The law specifically outlines the requirements for a CITIZEN mother to confer citizenship to her baby. Ann Dunham was NOT old enough-case closed!”..."<


With a Kenyan father Obama
Click to expand...

What I find most amusing is that 5 years into his Presidency, certain extreme conservatives are STILL so butthurt that they didn't have anyone competent enough to beat Obama (not once, but twice), that they have to create some stupid conspiracy theory in order to soothe themselves over the fact that no one of any credibility takes their extremism seriously. Seems to me that it is such a bitter pill to swallow, that these folks will resort to creating their own reality in order to make themselves feel better. Just remember this, though: all of your stupid attempts have failed... he will have been President for 8 years. And there was nothing you all could do about it. Really shows the weakness of your ideology.
 
Muhammed said:
:doh

You seem to have misunderstood me.

To clarify for you... NO!

That is not what I mean. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Oh, then youre wrong. The constitution only says 'born in the US'

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Click to expand...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What I find most amusing is that 5 years into his Presidency, certain extreme conservatives are STILL so butthurt that they didn't have anyone competent enough to beat Obama (not once, but twice), that they have to create some stupid conspiracy theory in order to soothe themselves over the fact that no one of any credibility takes their extremism seriously. Seems to me that it is such a bitter pill to swallow, that these folks will resort to creating their own reality in order to make themselves feel better. Just remember this, though: all of your stupid attempts have failed... he will have been President for 8 years. And there was nothing you all could do about it. Really shows the weakness of your ideology.
Click to expand...

Of those few extremists you mean. Because this is not representative of the ideology. Much like "bush stole the election" is not representative of all liberals, even though some still claim that 13 YEARS later.
 
Kobie said:
Wrong again. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on 11/29/42; Barack Obama was born on 8/4/61. Dunham was an adult. Your idiotic lies keep spiraling.

Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be president, and no amount of garbage you birthers can chuck at him will change that.

PERIOD. DISCUSSION OVER.

If you honestly believe Obama is not eligible to be president, you are an idiot.

I have never seen such blatantly transparent attempts to move the goalposts in my life. The law you cited doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

>" ”When one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other a foreign national, the U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with FIVE of the years after the age of 14.” Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet requisite status ."<

We know they didn't teach history when you attended school. The law did exist. The revisionist may say it didn't but it was the law at the time. So who's the idiot ? I suppose next your going to claim that Stanley Ann Dunham was eligible to vote back in 1962.

In 1962 an 18 year old couldn't even vote. Those between the ages of 18-21 found themselves in limbo. Males could be drafted but couldn't legally drink a beer in most states. Their parents could still declare them as children and use them as a deduction when filing income tax returns if they were still attending school. In most states they couldn't even purchase or posses a handgun. The list is long. One didn't have all the same rights and responsibilities of an adult until they turned 21 years of age. In some respects, it's still true today.

Under the law, Stanley Ann Dunham couldn't confer citizenship status on her son, Barack Husein Obama until her 20th birthday. That was the law.

And I see the liberals in the city of N.Y. still believes that those between the ages of 18-21 aren't adult enough to purchase cigarettes.

BTW: This isn't South Africa, the discussion isn't over.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What I find most amusing is that 5 years into his Presidency, certain extreme conservatives are STILL so butthurt that they didn't have anyone competent enough to beat Obama (not once, but twice), that they have to create some stupid conspiracy theory in order to soothe themselves over the fact that no one of any credibility takes their extremism seriously. Seems to me that it is such a bitter pill to swallow, that these folks will resort to creating their own reality in order to make themselves feel better. Just remember this, though: all of your stupid attempts have failed... he will have been President for 8 years. And there was nothing you all could do about it. Really shows the weakness of your ideology.
Click to expand...

Or the weakness of our Constitution and the rule of law.

It was Barack Obama who spent over a million dollars in legal fees shopping for an activist judge to change the definition of "natural born citizen."
I'm just curious who's million dollars was it ?

BTW: I figured it out, Cannon Ball Run. ;)
 
APACHERAT said:
It's a world class city isn't it ?:lol:
Click to expand...

More than Fullerton or Costa Mesa....but not really. When most people in the world talk about "World Class Cities", Houston isn't usually mentioned.
 
disneydude said:
More than Fullerton or Costa Mesa....but not really. When most people in the world talk about "World Class Cities", Houston isn't usually mentioned.
Click to expand...

Costa Mesa isn't so bad, they do have a good size gun shop.

The only thing that beats Newport Beach or Laguna Beach would be La Jolla in San Diego.

Huntington Beach may hold the title of "Surf City" but more top surfers came from Hermosa Beach than Huntington Beach. Just the waves are better at the Huntington pier and the cliffs.

But Los Angeles County does have some places that are extremely desirable, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Manhattan Beach and believe it or not, El Segundo. We'll throw in Malibu.

Orange County has Irvine while L.A. County has ??? I can't say Simi Valley because it's in Ventura County. The closest thing L.A. County has to an Irvine would be Santa Clarita/Canyon Country.
 
APACHERAT said:
Costa Mesa isn't so bad, they do have a good size gun shop.

The only thing that beats Newport Beach or Laguna Beach would be La Jolla in San Diego.

Huntington Beach may hold the title of "Surf City" but more top surfers came from Hermosa Beach than Huntington Beach. Just the waves are better at the Huntington pier and the cliffs.

But Los Angeles County does have some places that are extremely desirable, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Manhattan Beach and believe it or not, El Segundo. We'll throw in Malibu.

Orange County has Irvine while L.A. County has ??? I can't say Simi Valley because it's in Ventura County. The closest thing L.A. County has to an Irvine would be Santa Clarita/Canyon Country.
Click to expand...

No...Costa Mesa is fine for a beach town...just like Redondo or Hermosa....just beach cities.

As far as desirable? Sure they have their qualities...but I've done that...living in Manhattan beach is nice for its proximity to the beach, but its so friggin far away from everything else. I prefer the valley.
 
My exwife is from Fullerton, I cant go back there. I just love San Diego.
 
disneydude said:
No...Costa Mesa is fine for a beach town...just like Redondo or Hermosa....just beach cities.

As far as desirable? Sure they have their qualities...but I've done that...living in Manhattan beach is nice for its proximity to the beach, but its so friggin far away from everything else. I prefer the valley.
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD ! Gag Me With A Spoon ! Disneydude is a Valley Dude !

The "Valley" does have the city of Glendale which has some pretty nice neighborhoods and a decent law enforcement agency and fire department. Is it Glendale or Burbank that doesn't have any parking meters ? The extreme west end of the valley isn't to shabby and I suppose Calabasa could fall into being in the valley.

But what in hell happened to Van Nuys ? Pacoima looks so TJ.

BTW: Costa Mesa isn't a beach community. The purpose of Costa Mesa is as a buffer zone the separate Santa Anna from contaminating what's behind the Orange Curtain. :lol:
 
disneydude said:
but I've done that...living in Manhattan beach is nice for its proximity to the beach, but its so friggin far away from everything else. I prefer the valley.
Click to expand...

BTW: How were you able to afford to live in Manhattan Beach ? Unless you lived on the east end just west of Aviation Blvd. Even then it's not cheap.

Manhattan Beach was the first beach community to become a yuppie beach community in L.A. County. I know how that city works to keep the undesirables and riff raff out.
 
APACHERAT said:
OH MY GOD ! Gag Me With A Spoon ! Disneydude is a Valley Dude !

The "Valley" does have the city of Glendale which has some pretty nice neighborhoods and a decent law enforcement agency and fire department. Is it Glendale or Burbank that doesn't have any parking meters ? The extreme west end of the valley isn't to shabby and I suppose Calabasa could fall into being in the valley.

But what in hell happened to Van Nuys ? Pacoima looks so TJ.

BTW: Costa Mesa isn't a beach community. The purpose of Costa Mesa is as a buffer zone the separate Santa Anna from contaminating what's behind the Orange Curtain. :lol:
Click to expand...

LOL....I am now...mainly because I am older and live in a rural area (returning to my childhood routes). Growing up I lived in Redondo, Mid-Wilshire, West Hollywood, Santa Monica. Only been in the valley for the last 8 years...but I have to say, now that I live in the valley, I would ONLY live in the valley. Quality of life is better, not as conjested.

BTW Burbank and Glendale both have parking meters. Van Nuys still has some nice areas. Pacoima DOES remind me of TJ, although there are some parts of Pacoima that I like because you can get great food and buy a lot of ethnic stuff that you can't get unless you go downtown or to East LA.
 
APACHERAT said:
BTW: How were you able to afford to live in Manhattan Beach ? Unless you lived on the east end just west of Aviation Blvd. Even then it's not cheap.

Manhattan Beach was the first beach community to become a yuppie beach community in L.A. County. I know how that city works to keep the undesirables and riff raff out.
Click to expand...

I didn't ever live in Manhattan Beach. I had friends who did. I lived in Redondo...but spent a lot of time in Manhattan Beach and Hermosa as well.
 
radcen said:
Is the President YOUR President?

I occasionally hear people say, "President <insert name here> is not MY President!" Usually by people who intensely dislike the current President. To me, this places party loyalty, and to a lesser extent ideology, above country.

Have you ever had such sentiments?
Click to expand...

The president is my president in the sense that they have the title and the power, privilege, and wealth that comes with it.
 
jonny5 said:
Of those few extremists you mean. Because this is not representative of the ideology. Much like "bush stole the election" is not representative of all liberals, even though some still claim that 13 YEARS later.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with this. The "Bush stole the election" liberals are just as irrelevant and meaningless as the "birther" conservatives.
 
APACHERAT said:
Or the weakness of our Constitution and the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Both are solid on this issue. The problem is that some of those on the right just can't get over that he won, so they are attempting to deny reality.

It was Barack Obama who spent over a million dollars in legal fees shopping for an activist judge to change the definition of "natural born citizen."
I'm just curious who's million dollars was it ?
Click to expand...

That's your version. The accurate version is that he did what he could to silence the conspiracy theorists and prove his eligibility, which he did.

BTW: I figured it out, Cannon Ball Run. ;)
Click to expand...

About time.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree completely with this. The "Bush stole the election" liberals are just as irrelevant and meaningless as the "birther" conservatives.
Click to expand...

The problem with this conclusion is that one statement is true; Bush stole the election. There is plenty of evidence that back this up but it was swept under the rug just like every other crime under the Bush administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom