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

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
This is why I tell jokers like PMP to pay attention to the chronology of the posts..
Click to expand...


PostmodernProphet said:
if you paid more attention to the content of posts than to their chronology you would be aware that you've been wrong in all of them.....
Click to expand...

And when I've reduced neocon parrots and birther bumpkins to childish retorts as we've just observed the Post Modern Fool give, I know they are truly beyond any rational and logical defense of their neocon/birther BS.....so I leave PMP to sputter and fume.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What's truly astonishing is that Good Luck thinks he's actually smarter than Bravo or Damn Yankee or Yurt.

Oh..oooo....? Does the chronology of the posts prove that ?
What, that you're dumber than toast and Good Luck is no better? Or that Good Luck is a step above you on the neocon intelligence scale? The latter is like Curly conceding Larry was the smarter of the two! :rofl:

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

CLOWNS???? I know a clown named Clarabell....T,Clarabell, Liberal...hes a troll..........he don't talk much, just blows his horn a lot..
:confused: Seems Bravo is off his meds again, folks!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...&postcount=220
Click to expand...

bravo said:
:rofl: Really pinhead, what grade are you in ? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

Sorry Bravo, But I do enough of your homework on these boards as it is. But you'll have to contact your local school district if you want to take some remedial courses...maybe they'll give Bravo a senior citizen's discount.

Meanwhile, just follow Good Luck's lead in ignoring Post #220.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The ONLY problem that ever existed was in the minds of the defeated neocon GOP in 2008, a couple of bitter Hillary supporters and the current collection of birther/oather/libertarian/teabagger jackasses.

Did those five states have the long form of McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden in 2008? If not, it's going to be REAL interesting to see those five states explain to the rest of the world how they ACCEPTED Obama's citizenship in 2008, but will now REJECT it......last time I checked, political candidates have NEVER had to carry around their original birth document papers (long form) to authenticate their citizenship.

FYI, I and my two younger brothers got our driver's licenses and passports utilizing our OFFICIAL COPY of our birth certificates....as did my friends and relatives, and theirs, and theirs.

Bottom line: when this nonsense blows up in the birthers faces and they have one less bogus issue to campaign on, will jokers like PMP have the cojones to admit the error of their ways?
Click to expand...
Maybe no one ever accepted anything in the first place. you're only assuming they did.
It seems no State or Federal law even requires vetting the candidates....according to second link...


http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2011/01/abcnews-rightly-reports-that-obama.html
January 21, 2011

Army doctor could get up to 18 months in federal prison.

Poor sap....over a birth certificate that has never been seen publicly.
============================================
http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/11/video-memo-from-congressional-research.html
11/9/2011
Memo from the Congressional Research Service of the US Congress admits no one in the federal government verified Obama's long-form birth certificate.
They claim that no State or Federal law even requires vetting Obama....
 
Taichiliberal said:
And all one has to do is check the chronology of the posts on this thread to see what a self aggrandizing blowhard our Post Modern Fool is.
Click to expand...

all you need to do is check the chronology of the posts on this thread to see that Touchie has made the same mistake seven times......

it'll be real interesting to see when teabagger/oather/birther/neocon/Libertarian appeasing states will repeal that stipulation AFTER Obama wins in 2012.
Click to expand...

?????....why would they repeal it......if he wins it will be because he finally did what the birthers have been asking for these last two years.....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The ONLY problem that ever existed was in the minds of the defeated neocon GOP in 2008, a couple of bitter Hillary supporters and the current collection of birther/oather/libertarian/teabagger jackasses.

Did those five states have the long form of McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden in 2008? If not, it's going to be REAL interesting to see those five states explain to the rest of the world how they ACCEPTED Obama's citizenship in 2008, but will now REJECT it......last time I checked, political candidates have NEVER had to carry around their original birth document papers (long form) to authenticate their citizenship.

FYI, I and my two younger brothers got our driver's licenses and passports utilizing our OFFICIAL COPY of our birth certificates....as did my friends and relatives, and theirs, and theirs.

Bottom line: when this nonsense blows up in the birthers faces and they have one less bogus issue to campaign on, will jokers like PMP have the cojones to admit the error of their ways?
Click to expand...


bravo said:
Maybe no one ever accepted anything in the first place. you're only assuming they did.
It seems no State or Federal law even requires vetting the candidates....according to second link...


http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2011/01/abcnews-rightly-reports-that-obama.html
January 21, 2011

Army doctor could get up to 18 months in federal prison.

Poor sap....over a birth certificate that has never been seen publicly.
============================================
http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/11/video-memo-from-congressional-research.html
11/9/2011
Memo from the Congressional Research Service of the US Congress admits no one in the federal government verified Obama's long-form birth certificate.
They claim that no State or Federal law even requires vetting Obama....
Click to expand...
Constitutional Qualifications for Senator


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Constitutional Qualifications for Representative

at least 25 years of age.

a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to election.

a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent.


[U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2]



Constitutional Qualifications for President


"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


It is very specific:
35 years of age
natural born citizen
lived 14 years in the US



So Hawaii has verified that Obama was born there (two separate local newspaper announcements at the time too boot!), Hawaii and Illinois verified him as a citizen enough to get a drivers license and a passport, and he passed the vetting process that EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS for State Senate and President.

So when a bunch of yahoos change their state requirements, and he meets that by OFFICIAL LEGAL REQUEST....what on Earth will the birthers say then?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
?????....why would they repeal it......if he wins it will be because he finally did what the birthers have been asking for these last two years.....
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but the point all along is that the President did NOT have to bend to the will of a bunch of birther assholes....and when he meets OFFICIAL state requirements, the birthers will talk all types of insane, backpeddaling lies and BS to try and make themselves NOT look foolish....they won't have a hollow victory, just an affirmation of what everyone knew in 2008. The Post Modern Fool will now demonstrate this with his next post.
 
I've still not seen a lefty post anything approaching a good reason for Obama not releasing the long form birth certificate. Nigel says, "because the other guys who ran for president didn't have to." But that isn't really a rational reason. The other guys weren't called into question over where they may have been born. Had Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan encountered a similar situation, I am fairly sure a birth certificate would have been produced, just as was the case with John McCain.

So, instead of sticking your tongues out and saying "na-na-na-nah-nah!" How about coming up with some rational and mature reasoning for why this hasn't happened yet? I have racked my brain trying to come up with one, and I can't seem to find a good one. Surely, of you sycophants, ONE of you has some kind of intelligent input here... you'd think?
 
Dix, with these libtards, it's like a cult religion, and The Obama is their messiah. They don't want to know the truth, because it would destroy their beliefs.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Constitutional Qualifications for Senator


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Constitutional Qualifications for Representative

at least 25 years of age.

a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to election.

a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent.


[U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2]



Constitutional Qualifications for President


"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


It is very specific:
35 years of age
natural born citizen
lived 14 years in the US



So Hawaii has verified that Obama was born there (two separate local newspaper announcements at the time too boot!), Hawaii and Illinois verified him as a citizen enough to get a drivers license and a passport, and he passed the vetting process that EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS for State Senate and President.

So when a bunch of yahoos change their state requirements, and he meets that by OFFICIAL LEGAL REQUEST....what on Earth will the birthers say then?
Click to expand...
Whats your point?...your post has nothing to do with what I said....
we all know what the Constitutional Qualifications are....

Obama "passed" the vetting process that EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS for State Senate and President?

I guess thats relatively true....since no one's ever been actually vetted...no one can swear they've seen proof of anything ( Except for a scanned document and newspaper announcements, we've all seen those) and the link says there is no law requiring it...

I was wondering if its true that there is no law requiring it....

Constitutional qualifications and no requirement to prove them?...odd...

I don't question Obama, I question the laws or lack of them....
 
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't reference any specifics until your post 159. My incorrect comments came before that.

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.
Click to expand...

This resolution was passed in April 2008.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that McCain is a natural-born citizen. The resolution was passed by unanimous consent. More surprising than the result, however, was the fact that the bill was written and submitted by Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and co sponsored by both Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Politics makes strange bedfellows.

For some reason the Senate tried to make sure McCain's eligibility wouldn't be an issue. Your comment that we'd still be faced with birther claims is more supposition.

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.
Click to expand...

I reread this thread before commenting. First bravo and then you stated that Hillary's campaign was responsible for the Obama birther questions, but you, bravo and the others have yet to prove that this was the case. You've fingered Philip Berg. Any reference I see to Berg is that he was "a former Clinton supporter", not a person associated with the campaign. You want me to believe people in Hillary's campaign were responsible? Name names.

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.
Click to expand...

The courts declined to deem it an emergency because it was a BS lawsuit filed by a wackjob with a history of such actions. "Berg filed a complaint in federal district court on August 21, 2008, against Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, alleging that Obama was born actually in Mombasa, Kenya and that the "Certification of Live Birth" on Obama's website is a forgery. The court dismissed the complaint as "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."[11][12] The judge also found that the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and that Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."

You don't speak for all thinking persons nor do you speak for Hillary, and your comment is speculation because there wasn't a snowball's chance that Berg's lawsuit would end in victory for him.

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...

I made two comments about the timing of the McCain suits, #42 and #83. Then in #269 I corrected myself after doing further research into the issue. Apparently you thought I wouldn't check the chronology of the posts. So your implication is a lie.
 
charver said:
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?
Click to expand...

They can't seem to unearth the real one either...:palm:

I'll bet the Brits wouldn't fvck it up as bad, eh?
 
Can anyone in fact prove the BC actually exists ? Other than a scanned replica.

Does anyone claim to have personally seen it ?
 
Dixie said:
I've still not seen a lefty post anything approaching a good reason for Obama not releasing the long form birth certificate. Translation: Dixie doesn't accept the FACT that Obama is under NO LEGAL obligation to present ANOTHER form of birth documentation to a bunch of birther yahoos with a grudge. Nigel says, "because the other guys who ran for president didn't have to." But that isn't really a rational reason. The other guys weren't called into question over where they may have been born. Translation: Dixie ignores matter of Facts and history and legal rights that don't agree with his wants and beliefs. Bottom line: where is the "rationality" of making additional requirements of identification AFTER 40 some odd years of acceptance by two States, the State Dept. and the Congress. Had Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan encountered a similar situation, I am fairly sure a birth certificate would have been produced, just as was the case with John McCain. Once again, Dixie injects his supposition and conjecture as if it stands for fact......birthers/neocons/oathers/teabaggers/Libertarians all need to do this in order to perpetuate the veneer or credibility for their mantras.

So, instead of sticking your tongues out and saying "na-na-na-nah-nah!" How about coming up with some rational and mature reasoning for why this hasn't happened yet? I have racked my brain trying to come up with one, and I can't seem to find a good one. Again, Dixie believes that because a bunch of sore loser birthers and neocons and bitter Hillary hacks have the right to demand anything they want and get it. TFB for them that the law doesn't see it that way. Surely, of you sycophants, ONE of you has some kind of intelligent input here... you'd think?
Click to expand...

As the chronology of the posts shows, Dixie just ignores and denies what doesn't fit his view of what should and shouldn't be in the world.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Constitutional Qualifications for Senator


No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Constitutional Qualifications for Representative

at least 25 years of age.

a citizen of the United States for at least seven years prior to election.

a resident of the state he or she is chosen to represent.


[U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2]



Constitutional Qualifications for President


"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


It is very specific:
35 years of age
natural born citizen
lived 14 years in the US



So Hawaii has verified that Obama was born there (two separate local newspaper announcements at the time too boot!), Hawaii and Illinois verified him as a citizen enough to get a drivers license and a passport, and he passed the vetting process that EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS for State Senate and President.

So when a bunch of yahoos change their state requirements, and he meets that by OFFICIAL LEGAL REQUEST....what on Earth will the birthers say then?
Click to expand...


bravo said:
Whats your point?...your post has nothing to do with what I said....
we all know what the Constitutional Qualifications are....

Obama "passed" the vetting process that EVERY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS for State Senate and President?

I guess thats relatively true....since no one's ever been actually vetted...no one can swear they've seen proof of anything ( Except for a scanned document and newspaper announcements, we've all seen those) and the link says there is no law requiring it...

I was wondering if its true that there is no law requiring it....

Constitutional qualifications and no requirement to prove them?...odd...

I don't question Obama, I question the laws or lack of them....
Click to expand...

What's my point? Same as always......since Obama's birth was announced in TWO Hawaiian newspapers at the time, since the State of Hawaii has produced an OFFICIAL COPY of his birth certificate that was ACCEPTED BY THE STATE DEPT. WHEN OBAMA RECEIVED HIS PASSPORT.....since Obama's birth records were accepted by Hawaii and Illinois when he applied for drivers licenses, bank transactions....and since Obama's birth records were accepted by the Congress, the Senate and ALL 50 states in the 2008 election campaign AS DEEMED BY THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION....all this birther nonsense is just that....nonsense bullhorned by a bunch of sore losers and anti-Obama/liberal idealogues, with the GOP waiting in the wings.

Obama was under NO legal pressure to gratify the silliness by the forementioned yahoos....yahoos who will NEVER accept being wrong, and will NEVER admit it.

But hey, now that the yahoos have influenced the politics of 5 (possibly) ten states to change the rules that they feel will now EXPOSE the Obama birth conspiracy...it's going to be REAL interesting to hear the excuses and BS rhetoric by the oathers/birthers/neocons/teabaggers/libertarians when the Obama campaign just complies with the new state rules, and just reaffirms what was already known in 2008.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As the chronology of the posts shows, Dixie just ignores and denies what doesn't fit his view of what should and shouldn't be in the world.
Click to expand...

Chicklet, your shtick has gotten really old and boring. Can't you come up with some new words to mouth off with? You've not presented any evidence to support your argument, none of you have. All you can do is continue to gyrate and obfuscate, and call people names. You can't even formulate a rational excuse, because there really isn't one! When all is said and done, you can't prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you can't give a legitimate reason why a BC (if it exists) hasn't turned up yet.

Now... Go explore a thesaurus and see if you can't learn yourself a few new words... we'd all be appreciative of that!
 
Dixie said:
Chicklet, your shtick has gotten really old and boring. Can't you come up with some new words to mouth off with? You've not presented any evidence to support your argument, none of you have. All you can do is continue to gyrate and obfuscate, and call people names. You can't even formulate a rational excuse, because there really isn't one! When all is said and done, you can't prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you can't give a legitimate reason why a BC (if it exists) hasn't turned up yet.

Now... Go explore a thesaurus and see if you can't learn yourself a few new words... we'd all be appreciative of that!
Click to expand...

insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian insipidly stubborn birther/oather/teabagger/neocon/Libertarian clowns, neocon parrot/teabagger/birther/oather/Libertarian

The chronology of the posts is your undoing!
 
Originally Posted by Dixie
I've still not seen a lefty post anything approaching a good reason for Obama not releasing the long form birth certificate. Translation: Dixie doesn't accept the FACT that Obama is under NO LEGAL obligation to present ANOTHER form of birth documentation to a bunch of birther yahoos with a grudge. Nigel says, "because the other guys who ran for president didn't have to." But that isn't really a rational reason. The other guys weren't called into question over where they may have been born. Translation: Dixie ignores matter of Facts and history and legal rights that don't agree with his wants and beliefs. Bottom line: where is the "rationality" of making additional requirements of identification AFTER 40 some odd years of acceptance by two States, the State Dept. and the Congress. Had Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan encountered a similar situation, I am fairly sure a birth certificate would have been produced, just as was the case with John McCain. Once again, Dixie injects his supposition and conjecture as if it stands for fact......birthers/neocons/oathers/teabaggers/Libertarians all need to do this in order to perpetuate the veneer or credibility for their mantras.So, instead of sticking your tongues out and saying "na-na-na-nah-nah!" How about coming up with some rational and mature reasoning for why this hasn't happened yet? I have racked my brain trying to come up with one, and I can't seem to find a good one. Again, Dixie believes that because a bunch of sore loser birthers and neocons and bitter Hillary hacks have the right to demand anything they want and get it. TFB for them that the law doesn't see it that way. Surely, of you sycophants, ONE of you has some kind of intelligent input here... you'd think?
Click to expand...

As the chronology of the posts shows, Dixie just ignores and denies what doesn't fit his view of what should and shouldn't be in the world.
Dixie said:
Chicklet, your shtick has gotten really old and boring.
Can't you come up with some new words to mouth off with? You've not presented any evidence to support your argument, none of you have. All you can do is continue to gyrate and obfuscate, and call people names. You can't even formulate a rational excuse, because there really isn't one! When all is said and done, you can't prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, and you can't give a legitimate reason why a BC (if it exists) hasn't turned up yet.

And after wasting time and space, all our Dixie Dunce has done here is just repeat the same old tired assed birther BS. Birthers DON'T ACCEPT what all 50 states in 2008 did, what the DMV of two States did, what the State Dept. did, what BANKS have, what the Congress and Secret Service did....all this over 40 years and counting. It took birthers two years to get some asshole legislators in 5 states to make additional requirements that essentially are redundant to what they accepted in 2008. And when all is said and done and the White House complies with State regulations, the birthers will just either switch to another silly conspiracy or fall over themselves making excuses for their stupidity and public humiliation.

Now... Go explore a thesaurus and see if you can't learn yourself a few new words... we'd all be appreciative of that!
Click to expand...

Bottom line: the FACTS I just related are ignored by insipidly stubborn birther bumpkins and assholes like Dixie. These fools just IGNORE THE FACT THAT OBAMA WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO INDULGE THE WHIMS OF A BUNCH OF LOSER NEOCONS AND HILLARY WONKS...AND PRESENTED THEM WITH WHAT EVERY AMERICAN USES AS A FORM OF ID ON A DAILY BASIS.

Obama isn't going to be impeached by Birther BS.....and if they try to hold up the 2012 elections, they'll be sorely disappointed...again (but Hannity, Beck, Crowley, Levin, Maulkin, the WND, NewsMax, etc., will surely reap the financial benefits of telling these neocon/birther/oather/teabagger/Libertarian fools what they want to hear).
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
....and if they try to hold up the 2012 elections, they'll be sorely disappointed...
Click to expand...

why on earth would the elections of 2012 be held up?......if Obama wants to be on all the ballots he will simply file the required documentation.....if he chooses not to he won't be on the ballots....

that wouldn't hold up the elections, they would still be held the first Tuesday in November.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top