Right, because the first place I look for political commentary is fucking youtube. I can’t form my opinions on current affairs if I don’t see at least one youtube video on the subject first.
And as far as this website goes, you must be kidding me. I heard nothing, not one post about the man being unfit for POTUS because he was black. Fuck, even the nutjobs weren’t saying he was unfit for duty because of his race, it was his (supposed) RELIGION they were up in arms about.
Your right, no one in the Republican party would be dishonest
[/quote]
Yeah, way to mis-read my post there slick. I didn’t say “republican party” and I didn’t say “in the whole world”. I said “on this website”. Because up until I was made aware of the quote Gambit pulled out of a thread (and I am still unaware of which thread that was), I couldn’t think of a single example where Obama’s race was brought up as a reason he was a bad idea for president.
YOU pulled the race card. Nobody here cares about race—they just plain don’t like his policies. Policies =/= race.
And one more thing pittbull—something I think you should know since you seem to pay attention to so much that goes on in the PWI: I’m not republican, and I’ve made a point several times to say that I don’t like to submit to the Republican party. I’m a GDI and proud of it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am trying to figure out the logic of these race-based posts.
Are you trying to argue that since Obama is black then therefore there should be no criticism of his sealing his passport, educational, medical, and birth records, and no one should voice suspicion that there may be a reason behind that such as not being born in the US?
If that isn’t your argument (take the “you” in the plural as I think I’ve seen such posts from more than one author) then exactly why are you bringing race into it?
Besides the fact that many in the left pretty much never fail to make race a factor, usually a deciding factor where people are concerned. Was that your only reason?
I know it is because I am a left wing wacko, but I have no problem with him sealing his passport info, his birth records or his high school thesis or what size underwear he wears. You just may turn into a wacko and do something stupid with the info.
[/quote]
You know, you’re actually right. It hadn’t occurred to me how information from the long-form birth certificate (if there is one) and thus knowing things like the hospital he was born at, the attending physician and so forth, which some think would provide more and indeed complete certainty he was born in the US, also could be used for evil by whack-jobs.
Let alone all the ways that his passport information could be used to commit a whacko act. Or information from his college as to whether he claimed Indonesian citizenship at that time. It’s probably actually the Secret Service that’s demanding that that information be sealed for his own protection. (Uh, somehow that did not come out sounding quite right, but no matter.)
Props to you for your insight in realizing these serious security risks.
And the US Constitution specifying that the President must be a natural-born citizen surely does NOT mean that the American people have a right to the means to verify that it is the case via quite ordinary means. Obama surely has the right to block any and all means of checking. Like you, I now have not the slightest problem with that. Thanx
No doubt I’ll soon be voting to tax others so as to send me a check, too.
What would happen if Obama was a foreign national? Impeachment, resignation, election null and void? Be careful what you wish for, do you really want Joe Biden to be president ???
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am trying to figure out the logic of these race-based posts.
Are you trying to argue that since Obama is black then therefore there should be no criticism of his sealing his passport, educational, medical, and birth records, and no one should voice suspicion that there may be a reason behind that such as not being born in the US?
If that isn’t your argument (take the “you” in the plural as I think I’ve seen such posts from more than one author) then exactly why are you bringing race into it?
Besides the fact that many in the left pretty much never fail to make race a factor, usually a deciding factor where people are concerned. Was that your only reason?[/quote]
I’m still waiting for how Kerry was a traitor. Why don’t you throw that one out there first huh tough guy?
So all these Security, Intelligence, and Defense agencies didn’t check documents before accepting Obama’s directives? They have no idea there’s a foreign national calling the shots now? Again, I just don’t buy all this.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am trying to figure out the logic of these race-based posts.
Are you trying to argue that since Obama is black then therefore there should be no criticism of his sealing his passport, educational, medical, and birth records, and no one should voice suspicion that there may be a reason behind that such as not being born in the US?
If that isn’t your argument (take the “you” in the plural as I think I’ve seen such posts from more than one author) then exactly why are you bringing race into it?
Besides the fact that many in the left pretty much never fail to make race a factor, usually a deciding factor where people are concerned. Was that your only reason?
I know it is because I am a left wing wacko, but I have no problem with him sealing his passport info, his birth records or his high school thesis or what size underwear he wears. You just may turn into a wacko and do something stupid with the info.
You know, you’re actually right. It hadn’t occurred to me how information from the long-form birth certificate (if there is one) and thus knowing things like the hospital he was born at, the attending physician and so forth, which some think would provide more and indeed complete certainty he was born in the US, also could be used for evil by whack-jobs.
Let alone all the ways that his passport information could be used to commit a whacko act. Or information from his college as to whether he claimed Indonesian citizenship at that time. It’s probably actually the Secret Service that’s demanding that that information be sealed for his own protection. (Uh, somehow that did not come out sounding quite right, but no matter.)
Props to you for your insight in realizing these serious security risks.
And the US Constitution specifying that the President must be a natural-born citizen surely does NOT mean that the American people have a right to the means to verify that it is the case via quite ordinary means. Obama surely has the right to block any and all means of checking. Like you, I now have not the slightest problem with that. Thanx
No doubt I’ll soon be voting to tax others so as to send me a check, too.
[/quote]
Bill, you’re actually a smart guy, I really don’t understand why you’re playing in the mud with these wackos.
Do you REALLY think Hillary would have let Obama win the nomination if he were ineligible? Do you REALLY think McCain would have let him win? Come on. Get real.
Indonesian thing? How old was he, 8? Give me a break. Also read the post about this on the “Are Republicans Crazy” thread. Can you “give up” your child’s citizenship? You can look it up yourself if you don’t trust the post from the “Are Republicans Crazy” thread.
There ARE some records that he is not releasing. And there is a decent reason to be concerned about this. But the “not an American” stuff is pretty nutty.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So all these Security, Intelligence, and Defense agencies didn’t check documents before accepting Obama’s directives? They have no idea there’s a foreign national calling the shots now? Again, I just don’t buy all this.[/quote]
What’s going on Sloth? I thought you’d be quietly accepting this insanity.
Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster “murder.” George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.
Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president of the United States. Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama’s birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.
Strangely, the only people I know that ever bring up race in regards to the president are democrats. The rest of us don’t give fuck-all about it.
Totally Man! Especially on this website just before the election.
And then there’s this guy:
Right, because the first place I look for political commentary is fucking youtube. I can’t form my opinions on current affairs if I don’t see at least one youtube video on the subject first.
And as far as this website goes, you must be kidding me. I heard nothing, not one post about the man being unfit for POTUS because he was black. Fuck, even the nutjobs weren’t saying he was unfit for duty because of his race, it was his (supposed) RELIGION they were up in arms about.
Goal posts move much? How did “bring up race in regards to the president” become “the man being unfit for POTUS because he was black” ?
But even using your new standard, we have this gem from another current thread: “I think people were so pissed and upset, they really didnt care if the idea of a black president was bad. I think people were willing to take the chance, because after all, what could have been worse than Bush.”
I’m sure this poster was a dem though.
And btw, the youtube clip was a guy named “Rush”…I think he might be a “non-democrat” that “[brought] up race in regards to the president”
I don’t understand your complaining. No hispanics ran for office. 99.99% of the time race is brought up, it concerns in some way the African-American and the Caucasian. Besides which the only reason I can think of to bring up race in a negative aspect regarding the president is to claim that that person is unfit to be POTUS by fact of his/her race. So what I wrote was consistent.
[/quote]
Not complaining. You said something I thought was absurd and I poked fun. Pretty common thing for me to do around here.
[quote]
I don’t know what thread that quote is from, haven’t read it. [/quote]
From Tribs “Unpleasantly Surprised” thread. Should still be in the top 10-15.
Fair enough. It came off differently. Or maybe you hang out with some loonie lefties but no loonie righties for some reason. You answered your own question on Garafalo thing (although I don’t exactly recall what she said). I simply poked fun at–what you claim now–was an inarticulate moment…
… 'Course, had you one of those in 2001 and then tried to get a seat on the Supreme Court you yourself might now be called a racist
Bill, you’re actually a smart guy, I really don’t understand why you’re playing in the mud with these wackos. [/quote]
How quickly you descend into rhetorical fallacy.
Please explain how a single thing I have written merits being described as “playing in the mud.”
Please explain how if there are crazy people that believe a thing, that proves the thing is not so.
You’re a smart guy: so the fact that you descend to this right away perhaps says a lot. You must be desperate and know that you can’t really, in any sound way, refute what I’ve said. As will continue to be clear from the rest of your post:
Do you really think either of them had access to the sealed records?
Do you really think neither of those have ever been wrong? Wow, I don’t think I’ve met someone who both believes that Hillary is never wrong and ditto for McCain. Somehow I doubt you have such extreme confidence in their ability to know such things. But for some reason – well, not having anything that proves me wrong – you rely on attempts such as these.
Further, if you’ll note – your being a smart guy and all – I haven’t stated that I expect he is not born in the US. Rather I expect that he is hiding something that he felt would ruin his chances to be President, and which at this point he still fears that if the truth were known it would turn people against him, thus the truth must be sealed from the people. And I disagree it is proper for a candidate for President, or an actual President, to hide every means that would ordinarily be available to prove eligibility, particularly when there is evidence (could be wrong evidence, but evidence nonetheless) that he is not eligible, e.g. family members stating he was born outside the country.
Do they have access to the sealed records? How do they know whether Obama himself attested to being an Indonesian citizen in college or not, and things of that sort?
You know they don’t have access to it, or to other sealed records.
Why do you think it proper for a candidate to hide means of determining if he has claimed, as an adult, dual citizenship – that is to say, allegiance also to another country – as an adult? Could it even be that he has had his passport records prior to 2004 sealed because they show dual citizenship? Might not the American people legitimately care whether that is so, and find it fraudulent of a candidate to hide such a thing from them if it is so? Or alternately refuse to vote for him knowing of this other allegiance held as an adult, if such be the case? How do we know it is not? Obama has had it sealed.
Exactly why do you call it “playing in the mud” to say that when someone is working this hard to hide things there may well be something rotten, and furthermore, it isn’t proper for a Presidential candidate to hide all these things? For considerably less important positions, we would never tolerate it.
It’s just so simple to smear everyone who raises a point that one doesn’t like. Anyone who says that is a crazy! Boy that settles everything. Award a summa cum laude to everyone who uses that line of argument.
On one hand, I agree with Sloth in that if there was firm proof that Obama was legally ineligible to hold the office, somebody would’ve nailed him to a tree with it by now. But on the other, why would he try so hard to keep some of his past records sealed if there wasn’t something “bad” in them?
Perhaps it’s something minor, and he’ll release all of his records at a more politically opportune time. Perhaps not.
But nobody outside of Obama’s inner-circle knows exactly what it is he’s hiding, so those dismissing it as “nothing” are engaging in speculation just as much as those claiming that it’s “everything”.
Do you REALLY think Hillary would have let Obama win the nomination if he were ineligible? Do you REALLY think McCain would have let him win? Come on. Get real.
[/quote]
Look at the way the so-called “birthers” are currently treated in the media. Do you really think Clinton or McCain would have made such allegations with admittedly no proof to back it up?
Factcheck has been thoroughly debunked as a reputable site. If you want to go that route I’ll be happy to refute every factcheck link with one from World Net Daily (which I do respect as a news source, but one must be careful to check their sources).
Well, you are partially correct. No, a parent can’t give up a child’s citizenship.
Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.
[/i]
However, it is fully possible that Lolo Soetoro did renounce Barry’s U.S. citizenship. It wouldn’t have been valid under U.S. law, but it would have been enough for Barry to become an Indonesian citizen. It is likely that BO did somehow attain Indonesian citizenship and an Indonesian passport. If he has ever used this passport as an adult, which he likely has given his travels to Pakistan, he has shown a clear intent to keep his Indonesian citizenship.
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.[/i]
The question then is this, does Obama’s dual citizenship affect his status as a natural-born citizen (which the framers wrote in to ensure a Presidents allegiance to the U.S., and as I understand it only the U.S.) and is he able to adhere to the Oath of Office? In other words, can a dual-citizen be president?
This is a question that the USSC would have to answer, but wouldn’t you agree that the American people at least have the right to know if their president is a dual-citizen? Especially if the other citizenship isn’t exactly a country we have a long history of good relations with?
Of course, this is all a moot point if he was born in Kenya.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So all these Security, Intelligence, and Defense agencies didn’t check documents before accepting Obama’s directives? They have no idea there’s a foreign national calling the shots now? Again, I just don’t buy all this.
What’s going on Sloth? I thought you’d be quietly accepting this insanity. [/quote]
Right, because the first place I look for political commentary is fucking youtube. I can’t form my opinions on current affairs if I don’t see at least one youtube video on the subject first.
And as far as this website goes, you must be kidding me. I heard nothing, not one post about the man being unfit for POTUS because he was black. Fuck, even the nutjobs weren’t saying he was unfit for duty because of his race, it was his (supposed) RELIGION they were up in arms about.
Your right, no one in the Republican party would be dishonest
Yeah, way to mis-read my post there slick. I didn’t say “republican party” and I didn’t say “in the whole world”. I said “on this website”. Because up until I was made aware of the quote Gambit pulled out of a thread (and I am still unaware of which thread that was), I couldn’t think of a single example where Obama’s race was brought up as a reason he was a bad idea for president.
YOU pulled the race card. Nobody here cares about race—they just plain don’t like his policies. Policies =/= race.
[/quote]
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play
Count One: TREASON. - While still in the United States Naval Reserve, Lt. John F. Kerry did, in Paris, France, without authorization from the President or the State Department, undergo private negotiations with the enemy, a foreign government, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong thus giving, aid and comfort to the enemy in 1970 while active combat operations were in progress in violation of 18 USC 2381 - Treason and of the USCJ Section 904. Art. 104. Aiding the Enemy.
And the 14th Ammendment, clause 3:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [Emphasis mine]
Finally, given that he made an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, I present article 3, section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[Emphasis mine]
To summarize, in meeting and negotiating with representatives of the North Vietnam government without authorization, Kerry aided and comforted the enemy, which the U.S. constitution defines as treason. Committing treason is in direct contrast to the Oath he took upon serving the country in the military, and the constitution bars any person from serving as Senator who has previously broken an oath to uphold it.
