WND: Apparently the Governor Can't Find the Birth Certificate

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So now YOU speaking for Abercrombie? And to add insult to injury, YOU are re-writing Hawaiian law.
Click to expand...
Damn Yankee said:
You were the one speaking for him, Libby, claiming that he "mis-spoke". I'm simply taking his words at face value.

As far as the law, again I'm going by what Abercrombie stated: he doesn't have the legal ability to obtain the certificate. But that doesn't mean that he can't find out if it exists.

The chronology of the posts is your undoing, so squawk on, liberal/ warmer/ race baiter. :)
Click to expand...

:palm: Folks, just follow the chronology of the exchanges between me and this Damn Yankee idiot....with attention to the link I provided on this post

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=765379&postcount=255

Damn Yankee is just full of it....another neocon imbecile who tries to hide his ignorance and inability to honestly debate with this convoluted BS. I'll dump him back into the IA bin....dusting him off for the occasional laugh or the naive hope that DY will grow up.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: You can repeat that birther bullshit ad nauseum, PMP, but you won't make these 5 States or the birther movement any less foolish looking.

Bottom line: in 2008 these 5 States ACCEPTED the documentation Obama (and every other candidate before him) that YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN USES TO OBTAIN PASSPORTS, DRIVER'S LICENSES AND TO COMPLETE SOME BANKING BUSINESS. Now suddenly, they are saying that is NOT good enough...so they REJECT documentation that is recognized by the State Dept., Obama's Home State, the State of Illinois, the Secret Service, the Congress/Senate of the US of America.

What's TRULY hysterical is that there are a bunch of birthers clenching their butt cheeks in hopes that Hawaii can't produce the record....and when he does, they'll just claim it's fake unless some neocon/birther/oather/teabagger/Libertarian asswipe representative is given personal access. :palm:
Click to expand...

all they are doing is requiring the same documentation that the US requires for passports and at least Florida requires to get a license....is that so difficult?...
 
Give me a fuckin break.....

Not the dreaded " chronology of the posts "........ again......

have some fuckin' mercy.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
these 5 States look when you suddenly claim "hey, everyone else can use a certain ID in this country, be accepted and function...but NOT Obama!"
Click to expand...

not true.....no one else will be allowed on the ballot without proving the same thing that I am certain Obama will finally prove......you're certain too, right?......why don't you have confidence in him....have you lost hope like Kenneth and Bjorn?.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: You can repeat that birther bullshit ad nauseum, PMP, but you won't make these 5 States or the birther movement any less foolish looking.

:palm:
Click to expand...
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, others

[/FONT]
Now it will take 10 states.....:good4u:

:lol:
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Folks, just follow the chronology of the exchanges between me and this Damn Yankee idiot....with attention to the link I provided on this post

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=765379&postcount=255

Damn Yankee is just full of it....another neocon imbecile who tries to hide his ignorance and inability to honestly debate with this convoluted BS. I'll dump him back into the IA bin....dusting him off for the occasional laugh or the naive hope that DY will grow up.
Click to expand...

Just as I predicted, you FAIL to respond to the questions. The chronology of the posts is your undoing, so squawk on, liberal/ warmer/ race baiter. :)
 
Good Luck said:
Okay, first I will say that I can see why you would read that I implied it was democrats who challenged McCain's eligibility, because I asked if you represented all democrats. I did not intend from that statement to imply that it was democrats who challenged McCain's eligibility. Nor would it make sense that it was democrats, since the challenge was issued before the primaries. This knowledge would indicate that the challenge would have come from other republican(s).

But the POINT is that McCain's eligibility was challenged BEFORE Obama's. The rest of it is stupid spin on your part. "prove it was democrats (plural)" LOL Still dancing around the FACTS that you lied about McCain only being challenged because Obama was, and you lied that Obama was the only one who was asked to produce his birth certificate.

Bottom line, no matter who it was challenging McCain's or Obama's eligibility, BOTH were challenged, with McCain's challenge coming first. Therefore, your claims are lies. Period. Spin it any way you want, but your still lied about the situation being ONLY against Obama, you lied that only Obama has been asked to produce his BC, you lied that McCain's challenge was only in response to Obama's, etc. etc. etc. Dwell away on the minutia all you want, you cannot hide from your lies.

Also, as to Berg's lawsuit, suppose for a second that his challenge had been successful. What would that have done to Clinton's withdrawal from the race? ie: it did not matter that Clinton had withdrawn - a successful challenge to Obama's eligibility would have put her right back in the driver's seat. So much for THAT spin....
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on one point. McCain actually had three suits filed re: his eligibility. Two of them were early, but the Robinson suit was filed 10 days before Berg, hardly a time period to quibble over.

Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v. USA March 6, 2008
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2008cv00304/409923/

Fred HOLLANDER v.Senator John McCAIN and the Republican National Committee. July 24, 2008.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2008cv00099/32089/

Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al iled: August 11, 2008http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/

Also, "there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."

So are we to believe from this that McCain's BC copy is not legitimate? Surely we hold the Canal Zone to the same standard we hold Hawaii on such a critical issue.

I only knew about the Robinson lawsuit, not the others. That doesn't make me a liar, it means I didn't do enough research before commenting. I understand you must immediately default to name-calling so in keeping with your precedent, anybody who promotes the theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen is a liar, pure and simple. That would be you.

It took Berg's lawsuit months to get before the courts. No court deemed Berg's suit so critical that they rushed to settle before the election. If the suit had been successful, the DNC would decide who would replace Obama on the ticket. Your comment that Hillary would land in the driver's seat is pure speculation.
 
christiefan915 said:
I stand corrected on one point. McCain actually had three suits filed re: his eligibility. Two of them were early, but the Robinson suit was filed 10 days before Berg, hardly a time period to quibble over.

Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v. USA March 6, 2008
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2008cv00304/409923/

Fred HOLLANDER v.Senator John McCAIN and the Republican National Committee. July 24, 2008.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2008cv00099/32089/

Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al iled: August 11, 2008http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/

Also, "there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."

So are we to believe from this that McCain's BC copy is not legitimate? Surely we hold the Canal Zone to the same standard we hold Hawaii on such a critical issue.

I only knew about the Robinson lawsuit, not the others. That doesn't make me a liar, it means I didn't do enough research before commenting. I understand you must immediately default to name-calling so in keeping with your precedent, anybody who promotes the theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen is a liar, pure and simple. That would be you.

It took Berg's lawsuit months to get before the courts. No court deemed Berg's suit so critical that they rushed to settle before the election. If the suit had been successful, the DNC would decide who would replace Obama on the ticket. Your comment that Hillary would land in the driver's seat is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

have you recanted your claim that the mccain b/c suits were in retaliation over the obama suits?
 
christiefan915 said:
I stand corrected on one point. McCain actually had three suits filed re: his eligibility. Two of them were early, but the Robinson suit was filed 10 days before Berg, hardly a time period to quibble over.

Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v. USA March 6, 2008
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2008cv00304/409923/

Fred HOLLANDER v.Senator John McCAIN and the Republican National Committee. July 24, 2008.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2008cv00099/32089/

Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al iled: August 11, 2008http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/

Also, "there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."

So are we to believe from this that McCain's BC copy is not legitimate? Surely we hold the Canal Zone to the same standard we hold Hawaii on such a critical issue.

I only knew about the Robinson lawsuit, not the others. That doesn't make me a liar, it means I didn't do enough research before commenting. I understand you must immediately default to name-calling so in keeping with your precedent, anybody who promotes the theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen is a liar, pure and simple. That would be you.

It took Berg's lawsuit months to get before the courts. No court deemed Berg's suit so critical that they rushed to settle before the election. If the suit had been successful, the DNC would decide who would replace Obama on the ticket. Your comment that Hillary would land in the driver's seat is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I assumed you had knowledge of McCain's challenges since you demonstrated specific knowledge of that situation - especially since my research uncovered the early challenges first, and since I referenced that knowledge.

Yes, there are still those who believe McCain's BC is not legitimate. There are also those who believe the BC not withstanding, they challenge that if McCain was born outside of the military base, then he is not a natural born citizen anyway, regardless of the fact both his parents are U.S. citizens. He is a citizen, yes, but the challenge is to the specific term "natural born", something that has yet to be specifically defined within our legal system. Had McCain won the election instead of Obama, believe it or not, we'd still be faced with a "birther" issue.

OTOH, you also made claims about the entire "Birther" controversy being an invention of the far right. When it was pointed out to you that it was actually people associated with Clinton's campaign, you spun like a pinwheel about how it was not Clinton - trying like hell to conceal the fact that you had claimed it is all a right wing conspiracy against your precious political master.

It does not matter how long the courts took. The intent of Berg's lawsuit was obvious to anyone. His lawyers even demanded the courts take the case on an emergency basis - the courts declined. Had Berg gotten his way: had the courts allowed his lawsuit to result in a subpoena of Obama's original BC, and had Obama continued to refuse, then the only COA left open to the DNC would be to nominate Clinton in his stead. You can call it "speculation" if you wish. But any thinking person would come to the same conclusion.

BTW:
anybody who promotes the theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen is a liar, pure and simple. That would be you.
Click to expand...
No, the only ones I call liars are the ones who are presented with easily verified information, and continue to make comments as if that information was not available.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You can repeat that birther bullshit ad nauseum, PMP, but you won't make these 5 States or the birther movement any less foolish looking.

Bottom line: in 2008 these 5 States ACCEPTED the documentation Obama (and every other candidate before him) that YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN USES TO OBTAIN PASSPORTS, DRIVER'S LICENSES AND TO COMPLETE SOME BANKING BUSINESS. Now suddenly, they are saying that is NOT good enough...so they REJECT documentation that is recognized by the State Dept., Obama's Home State, the State of Illinois, the Secret Service, the Congress/Senate of the US of America.

What's TRULY hysterical is that there are a bunch of birthers clenching their butt cheeks in hopes that Hawaii can't produce the record....and when he does, they'll just claim it's fake unless some neocon/birther/oather/teabagger/Libertarian asswipe representative is given personal access.
Click to expand...



PostmodernProphet said:
all they are doing is requiring the same documentation that the US requires for passports and at least Florida requires to get a license....is that so difficult?...
Click to expand...

Wrong again, my Post Modern Fool.....2 years ago my brother applied for and received his passport by using his OFFICIAL COPY of his birth certificate. The young woman at the post office noticed that his copy was not the same as those issued in the last 20 years. She informed my brother that if there was any problem, the Feds would immediately notify him and instruct him on how to obtain proper credentials.

There was no problem...my brother got his first time passport within a weeks time.

And your blatherings about Florida were previously addressed....no need to beat that dead horse.

Once again, here's the FACTS and the logic derived from them that YOU can't deal with: in 2008 these 5 States ACCEPTED the documentation Obama (and every other candidate before him) that YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN USES TO OBTAIN PASSPORTS, DRIVER'S LICENSES AND TO COMPLETE SOME BANKING BUSINESS. Now suddenly, they are saying that is NOT good enough...so they REJECT documentation that is recognized by the State Dept., Obama's Home State, the State of Illinois, the Secret Service, the Congress/Senate of the US of America.

The sheer stupidity and irrational desperation by the birthers and all that sail with them is plainly evident. So, my post modern fool, you can stubbornly repeat your dreck ad nauseum to no avail.
 
bravo said:
Give me a fuckin break.....

Not the dreaded " chronology of the posts "........ again......

have some fuckin' mercy.....
Click to expand...

See folks, this intellectually impotent Bravo and the dullards that agree with him just can't stand it when someone calls them on their lies and BS. The Chronology of the Posts means that all one has to do is REVIEW previous posts to see if Bravo and his fellow cretins are honestly debating the issue......which is why this particular phrase is to Bravo and his fellow cretins what sunlight is to a vampire!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
these 5 States look when you suddenly claim "hey, everyone else can use a certain ID in this country, be accepted and function...but NOT Obama!"
Click to expand...


PostmodernProphet said:
not true.....no one else will be allowed on the ballot without proving the same thing that I am certain Obama will finally prove......you're certain too, right?......why don't you have confidence in him....have you lost hope like Kenneth and Bjorn?.....
Click to expand...

Either you're just trying to be a dense PMP or you truly are a cogenitally dense PMP.

Unless those 5 states put the EXACT same demands on EVERY CITIZEN who applies for a drivers license or a passport or certain bank transactions that they are with the cheesy birther ploy, then they are exacting a double standard for politicos and regular citizens. I wonder how THAT will fair with the general public?;)
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You can repeat that birther bullshit ad nauseum, PMP, but you won't make these 5 States or the birther movement any less foolish looking.
Click to expand...


bravo said:
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands

[/FONT] [FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]107 Electoral College votes controlled by Arizona, Texas, Connecticut, others

[/FONT]
Now it will take 10 states.....:good4u:

:lol:
Click to expand...


:palm: You should learn to READ CAREFULLY your neocon rags, Bravo. "Considering" doesn't automatically equate into law where state scotus, legislature and congress are concerned.

But if there is an addition to this birther bullshit, it STILL makes them look like idiots....as they would NOW REJECT ANY AND ALL PREVIOUS POLITICAL ELECTIONS that used standard I.D. required material. But I doubt any would have the guts to admit that....they'll just make up some convoluted BS as you do, Bravo.

But hey, does this mean that those states will now require the SAME standards for their everyday citizens with regards to applying for driver/non-driver I.D., passports or for special bank transactions? Gee, I wonder if the citizenry will get pissed having to pay EXTRA for that document?

Have fun creating all types of fantastic scenarios in response, Bravo. I know I'll have a laugh reading them. ;)
 
Originally Posted by christiefan915
I stand corrected on one point. McCain actually had three suits filed re: his eligibility. Two of them were early, but the Robinson suit was filed 10 days before Berg, hardly a time period to quibble over.

Inland Empire Voters and Andrew Aames v. USA March 6, 2008
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cal...v00304/409923/

Fred HOLLANDER v.Senator John McCAIN and the Republican National Committee. July 24, 2008.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new...cv00099/32089/

Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al iled: August 11, 2008http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/

Also, "there is no record of McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone Health Department's bound birth registers, which are publicly available at the National Archives in College Park. A search of the "Child Born Abroad" records of the U.S. consular service for August 1936 included many U.S. citizens born in the Canal Zone but did not turn up any mention of John McCain."

So are we to believe from this that McCain's BC copy is not legitimate? Surely we hold the Canal Zone to the same standard we hold Hawaii on such a critical issue.

I only knew about the Robinson lawsuit, not the others. That doesn't make me a liar, it means I didn't do enough research before commenting. I understand you must immediately default to name-calling so in keeping with your precedent, anybody who promotes the theory that Obama is not a natural-born citizen is a liar, pure and simple. That would be you.

It took Berg's lawsuit months to get before the courts. No court deemed Berg's suit so critical that they rushed to settle before the election. If the suit had been successful, the DNC would decide who would replace Obama on the ticket. Your comment that Hillary would land in the driver's seat is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Good Luck said:
My apologies. I assumed you had knowledge of McCain's challenges since you demonstrated specific knowledge of that situation - especially since my research uncovered the early challenges first, and since I referenced that knowledge.

Yes, there are still those who believe McCain's BC is not legitimate. There are also those who believe the BC not withstanding, they challenge that if McCain was born outside of the military base, then he is not a natural born citizen anyway, regardless of the fact both his parents are U.S. citizens. He is a citizen, yes, but the challenge is to the specific term "natural born", something that has yet to be specifically defined within our legal system. Had McCain won the election instead of Obama, believe it or not, we'd still be faced with a "birther" issue.

OTOH, you also made claims about the entire "Birther" controversy being an invention of the far right. When it was pointed out to you that it was actually people associated with Clinton's campaign, you spun like a pinwheel about how it was not Clinton - trying like hell to conceal the fact that you had claimed it is all a right wing conspiracy against your precious political master.

It does not matter how long the courts took. The intent of Berg's lawsuit was obvious to anyone. His lawyers even demanded the courts take the case on an emergency basis - the courts declined. Had Berg gotten his way: had the courts allowed his lawsuit to result in a subpoena of Obama's original BC, and had Obama continued to refuse, then the only COA left open to the DNC would be to nominate Clinton in his stead. You can call it "speculation" if you wish. But any thinking person would come to the same conclusion.

BTW:

No, the only ones I call liars are the ones who are presented with easily verified information, and continue to make comments as if that information was not available.
Click to expand...


What's truly astonishing is that Good Luck thinks he's actually smarter than Bravo or Damn Yankee or Yurt.

But as with all insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, Good Luck just ignores what he can't logically disprove:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=763868&postcount=220
 
Taichiliberal said:
...2 years ago my brother applied for and received his passport by using his OFFICIAL COPY of his birth certificate.
Click to expand...

yes....why won't Obama do the same?.....Hawaii releases official copies of birth certificates with consent of the party.....it would be a simple solution to this conundrum.....
 
Taichiliberal said:
Unless those 5 states put the EXACT same demands on EVERY CITIZEN who applies for a drivers license or a passport or certain bank transactions that they are with the cheesy birther ploy, then they are exacting a double standard for politicos and regular citizens. I wonder how THAT will fair with the general public?;)
Click to expand...

??????......why shouldn't there be a different standard for politicians than for regular citizens?......the last time I checked, no state required me to submit petitions signed by one thousand residents in order to get my name on a driver's license.........and I'm pretty certain you don't have to take a written driver's proficiency test in order to run for president......
 
LOL I'm beginning to think there are several LIBERAL "birthers" on this thread.

Why would they object so strenuously to state laws requiring presidential candidates prove their eligibility? Perhaps they believe Obama can not meet those demands?
 
Weird...US intelligence assured the world they knew the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's WMD, but they can't locate a fake birth certificate to unmask an American President as a fraud?

Who'd have thought, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top