View Full Version : Was the Obamessiah born in Kenya?
jtk1519
10-23-2008, 07:35 PM
Yeah, I know this one has been around for a while. There's even a snopes.com page about it (sorry to steal your thunder Firebird), but this story has taken a new and interesting twist.
Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and former Deputy Attorney General of that state, is suing the Obamessiah to force him to present definitive proof of American citizenship. I guess the most interesting thing is that despite the lawsuit, the Obamessiah's campaign has remained silent on the issue.
Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 07:43 PM
What nationalities are his mother and father???
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 07:50 PM
Yeah, I know this one has been around for a while. There's even a snopes.com page about it (sorry to steal your thunder Firebird), but this story has taken a new and interesting twist.
Philip J. Berg, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and former Deputy Attorney General of that state, is suing the Obamessiah to force him to present definitive proof of American citizenship. I guess the most interesting thing is that despite the lawsuit, the Obamessiah's campaign has remained silent on the issue.
Awful quite on the DNC front - where there is smoke there is fire.
Seems to me if there was nothing to this lawsuit, Obama and his people would simply present the documents to the court and get this thing over.
"Judge, here's my birth certificate, and a certified letter from the state of Hawaii saying this is in fact a real birth certificate."
"Case closed"
The problem is they aren't doing this which leaves doubt and questions.
Slim-Rob
10-23-2008, 07:55 PM
What nationalities are his mother and father???
his mother american, father kenyan
Warbird
10-23-2008, 07:55 PM
Awful quite on the DNC front - where there is smoke there is fire.
Seems to me if there was nothing to this lawsuit, Obama and his people would simply present the documents to the court and get this thing over.
"Judge, here's my birth certificate, and a certified letter from the state of Hawaii saying this is fact a real birth certificate."
"Case closed"
The problem is they aren't doing this which leaves doubt and questions.
This thing simultaneously thrills and horrifies me. On one hand, this may stop a guy who is by definition in the Constitution, ineligible to serve as president. On the other hand, it may wind up being true and nobody does anything about it. Or finally, it could just be nothing.
But seriously, this'd take that long to clear up. Just produce the thing!
It's sad our courts have to be used for such nonsense.
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 08:38 PM
his mother american, father kenyan
than why does his place of birth matter???:confused:
Grlslvftball2
10-23-2008, 08:46 PM
I file this topic under the G's for -----"grasping for straws"-----:rolleyes:
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 08:50 PM
I file this topic under the G's for -----"grasping for straws"-----:rolleyes:
My sister was born in France...I guess she French...:confused:
dragonsdaddy
10-23-2008, 09:00 PM
than why does his place of birth matter???:confused:
not a constitutional scholar by any definition, but i'm fairly certain that being born in the us is a requirement for being the potus. maybe the big o doesn't think the constitution should apply to him, being special and all. can this rule 36 be used to stop a national election, or does it go on and then be overturned if/when the truth comes out? think of the turmoil this would create. maybe this predicament is what the foil headers are predicting.
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:01 PM
than why does his place of birth matter???:confused:
I think you know this, but here it is anyway:
You have to be a natural born citizen:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html) defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States,both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So, If Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn't qualify to be President because his Dad was not an American citizen. Now if they can prove his Dad was alien then they may have a case.
CoveMom
10-23-2008, 09:07 PM
I think you know this, but here it is anyway:
You have to be a natural born citizen:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html) defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States,both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
So, If Obama was born in Kenya, he doesn't qualify to be President because his Dad was not an American citizen. Now if they can prove his Dad was alien then they may have a case.
Of course his Dad was alien. Just look at those ears.....;)
I know the Military people whose children are born overseas have to file some paperwork for Citizenship, I am sure that is what Obama's Mother did, if, in fact, he was not born in Hawaii.
I don't have a problem with the supplied birth certificate, but my foil hat is askew at the moment.
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:07 PM
What's ironic about this is people had questions much earlier about McCain's qualification to be President because he was born in Panama while his Dad was a base commander in the Navy.
"The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001403----000-.html), the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
CoveMom
10-23-2008, 09:09 PM
My sister was born in France...I guess she French...:confused:
No, she not French. She French-lite.
:D
jtk1519
10-23-2008, 09:11 PM
than why does his place of birth matter???:confused:
His mother was 18 when he was born. As I understand it, if she were 19, the Obamesiah could have been considered a US resident.
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:13 PM
My sister was born in France...I guess she French...:confused:
Tell your sister not to fret, assuming both of your parents are US citizens, or at least one is a US citizen and the other is a U.S. National or alien, she can still be President.
jtk1519
10-23-2008, 09:15 PM
It's sad our courts have to be used for such nonsense.
There's nothing wrong with the lawsuit at all. It should be simple. The suit is filed, the Obamessiah presents the standard documentation and the lawsuit is dismissed and only a few minutes of court time wasted. Instead, the Obamessiah is wasting court time by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit instead of just producing the required evidence. Why waste the time and lend gravity to the lawsuit by trying to dismiss it instead of spending 5 minutes at a Kinkos making a copy to show a judge? The fact that the Obamessiah is taking the course that he is strikes me as very suspicious.
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:20 PM
Another thing that makes me scratch my head is Obama is reported to be a Constitution Scholar. Having his background, he had to know people would ask questions about his place of birth and whether he was qaulified to be President. Don't you think he would have had his ducks in order to fight these types of lawsuits?
If people were questioning McCain because he was born in Panama, don't you think someone would ask if Obama was born in Kenya?
There's nothing wrong with the lawsuit at all. It should be simple. The suit is filed, the Obamessiah presents the standard documentation and the lawsuit is dismissed and only a few minutes of court time wasted. Instead, the Obamessiah is wasting court time by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit instead of just producing the required evidence. Why waste the time and lend gravity to the lawsuit by trying to dismiss it instead of spending 5 minutes at a Kinkos making a copy to show a judge? The fact that the Obamessiah is taking the course that he is strikes me as very suspicious.
You cant start pandering to every person that wants you to produce this or that in court.. If you go along, every person with an itch will be taking him to court... Instead the court will dismiss it and that will be the end of it.. The other idiots will see they cant just file a piece of paper and get people to buy into it...
farmerfan
10-23-2008, 09:24 PM
There's nothing wrong with the lawsuit at all. It should be simple. The suit is filed, the Obamessiah presents the standard documentation and the lawsuit is dismissed and only a few minutes of court time wasted. Instead, the Obamessiah is wasting court time by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit instead of just producing the required evidence. Why waste the time and lend gravity to the lawsuit by trying to dismiss it instead of spending 5 minutes at a Kinkos making a copy to show a judge? The fact that the Obamessiah is taking the course that he is strikes me as very suspicious.
Kinkos is a Canon national account and I know that Canon has high click charges therefore Kinkos charges almost 40x more than what an actual copy costs. They should have gone with Ricoh. We know that the $650MILLION+ hasn't been enough for the messiah snce he has asked all his donors to each donate $10 more since they're scrapping for cash. Thus you have your answer.
Obama SUCKS
You cant start pandering to every person that wants you to produce this or that in court.. If you go along, every person with an itch will be taking him to court... Instead the court will dismiss it and that will be the end of it.. The other idiots will see they cant just file a piece of paper and get people to buy into it...
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in a letter to the nations throughout the world:
“It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. ”
Berg continued there is overwhelming evidence that:
“Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!”
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 09:28 PM
I think you know this,
So as a republican...I'll should spilt hairs lke a trial lawyer???:rolleyes:
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 09:33 PM
No, she not French. She French-lite.
:D
She's my little sister...she better not French anything...:eek:
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 09:35 PM
Tell your sister not to fret, assuming both of your parents are US citizens, or at least one is a US citizen and the other is a U.S. National or alien, she can still be President.
They'll never vote in a French woman...
Signed,
msnbc
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:39 PM
So as a republican...I'll should spilt hairs lke a trial lawyer???:rolleyes:
Don't blame the Republicans for this one - this guy is a Democrat and Hillary supporter. Are the Clintons pushing this lawsuit?
LoneRocket
10-23-2008, 09:40 PM
There's nothing wrong with the lawsuit at all. It should be simple. The suit is filed, the Obamessiah presents the standard documentation and the lawsuit is dismissed and only a few minutes of court time wasted. Instead, the Obamessiah is wasting court time by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit instead of just producing the required evidence. Why waste the time and lend gravity to the lawsuit by trying to dismiss it instead of spending 5 minutes at a Kinkos making a copy to show a judge? The fact that the Obamessiah is taking the course that he is strikes me as very suspicious.
Some say it is a legal tactic make the person spend more money in legal fees by dragging it out so they might go broke in the process.
Bobcat81
10-23-2008, 09:46 PM
He's lucky i'm not the judge..
I'd order the cirtificate on my desk by 4pm tomorrow or the sob loses his candidacy ... Period.
Obama :rolleyes:
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 09:47 PM
Some say it is a legal tactic make the person spend more money in legal fees by dragging it out so they might go broke in the process.
With $600 million in the bank, he can drag this out for a long time.
LoneRocket
10-23-2008, 09:51 PM
With $600 million in the bank, he can drag this out for a long time.
A friend sent me an article last month about a Judge who jumped on the TX AG's office for trying to do that exact something. It is said make the person suing go broke and drop the suit by using legal maneuvers.
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 09:56 PM
Don't blame the Republicans for this one - this guy is a Democrat and Hillary supporter. Are the Clintons pushing this lawsuit?
Sometime...you actually have to read a post...:notworthy
But it doesn't happen often...:D
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 09:58 PM
He's lucky i'm not the judge..
I'd order the cirtificate on my desk by 4pm tomorrow or the sob loses his candidacy ... Period.
Obama :rolleyes:
I feel as lucky as Obama...and I'll cirtify that...:D
SaRattlerFan
10-23-2008, 10:00 PM
Sometime...you actually have to read a post...:notworthy
But it doesn't happen often...:D
Sorry, had a little trouble reading your greek, sarcasm, or whatever it was you were trying to convey.:D
mad_fan
10-23-2008, 10:09 PM
Sorry, had a little trouble reading your greek, sarcasm, or whatever it was you were trying to convey.:D
Nice first post...
Welcome to my board...;)
HebronHawk
10-23-2008, 10:17 PM
than why does his place of birth matter???:confused:
Under the U.S. Constitution, Presidents have to be born in the USA.
jtk1519
10-23-2008, 10:24 PM
You cant start pandering to every person that wants you to produce this or that in court.. If you go along, every person with an itch will be taking him to court... Instead the court will dismiss it and that will be the end of it.. The other idiots will see they cant just file a piece of paper and get people to buy into it...
The Obamessiah is actually bolstering such quacks by dragging this out and giving credence to the lawsuit and those who filed it. Here we are discussing it now. If the Obamessiah had just sent in a copy of his birth certificate when this suit was first filed, that would have been the end of it and we probably never would have heard anything about this.
dragonsdaddy
10-23-2008, 10:27 PM
Some say it is a legal tactic make the person spend more money in legal fees by dragging it out so they might go broke in the process.
the o isn't about to go broke, and i'm pretty sure the filer could find some monetary support if needed. this tactic might work in a suit between jaker and me, but not on the national stage.
CoveMom
10-23-2008, 10:45 PM
Nice first post...
Welcome to my board...;)
(polite cough) ahem.
DragonWatcher
10-24-2008, 12:49 AM
There's nothing wrong with the lawsuit at all. It should be simple. The suit is filed, the Obamessiah presents the standard documentation and the lawsuit is dismissed and only a few minutes of court time wasted. Instead, the Obamessiah is wasting court time by filing motions to dismiss the lawsuit instead of just producing the required evidence. Why waste the time and lend gravity to the lawsuit by trying to dismiss it instead of spending 5 minutes at a Kinkos making a copy to show a judge? The fact that the Obamessiah is taking the course that he is strikes me as very suspicious.
It's pretty self explanatory, he does that, it changes the media narrative for that day and possibly the next. Currently he's dominating the news with the 150 million, colin powell and state polls he's getting. It's pretty simple, when your up in the fourth just run the clock out, don't try a reverse. I don't think this is anything as pied has shown his actual birth certificate on here, but as to reasons why or why not someone is doing something right now either Mccain or Obama the answer is always going to be to win. Doesn't mean its bad but this story isn't being run repeatedly by any major news organization and just pops up online occasionally as a conspiracy theory.
The Obamessiah is actually bolstering such quacks by dragging this out and giving credence to the lawsuit and those who filed it. Here we are discussing it now. If the Obamessiah had just sent in a copy of his birth certificate when this suit was first filed, that would have been the end of it and we probably never would have heard anything about this.
Great point.
Bush and Cheney should have turned themselves in due to his accusations, right? Just address him and get it over with.
Philip J. Berg, Esquire, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.
Great point.
Bush and Cheney should have turned themselves in due to his accusations, right? Just address him and get it over with.
crackpot see's no partylines.......
crackpot see's no partylines.......
True, but SARattlerfan may be on to something. I have never heard Bush/Cheney discuss the RICO charges. Where there's smoke there's fire, right?
Awful quite on the DNC front - where there is smoke there is fire.
Seems to me if there was nothing to this lawsuit, Obama and his people would simply present the documents to the court and get this thing over.
"Judge, here's my birth certificate, and a certified letter from the state of Hawaii saying this is in fact a real birth certificate."
"Case closed"
The problem is they aren't doing this which leaves doubt and questions.
True, but SARattlerfan may be on to something. I have never heard Bush/Cheney discuss the RICO charges. Where there's smoke there's fire, right?
yea.... but bush and cheney aren't running for highest office in the..... oh.......
:rolleyes:
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 08:24 AM
True, but SARattlerfan may be on to something. I have never heard Bush/Cheney discuss the RICO charges. Where there's smoke there's fire, right?
Call me out all you want, but if there is nothing to this story, why hasn't Obama produced the documents and put this court case behind him?
Call me out all you want, but if there is nothing to this story, why hasn't Obama produced the documents and put this court case behind him?
Same reason Bush/Cheney haven't turned themselves in because of his RICO charge.
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 09:02 AM
Same reason Bush/Cheney haven't turned themselves in because of his RICO charge.
Your starting to use the liberal way of answering questions.
Someone asks a question about Obama's qualifications and you get an answer or question about Palins qualifications.
I thought this thread was about the lawsuit against Obama. Do we really want to talk about Bush/Cheney - they have less than 3 months left.
You still haven't answered the question - why drag this mess out? Why not produce the documents and put this case behind you?
Note - those questions have nothing to do with the Bush RICO case - lets try and stay on subject here.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 09:11 AM
Your starting to use the liberal way of answering questions.
Someone asks a question about Obama's qualifications and you get an answer or question about Palins qualifications.
I thought this thread was about the lawsuit against Obama. Do we really want to talk about Bush/Cheney - they have less than 3 months left.
You still haven't answered the question - why drag this mess out? Why not produce the documents and put this case behind you?
Note - those questions have nothing to do with the Bush RICO case - lets try and stay on subject here.
Have you read the petition? It's a delight, full of numerous allegations beyond the issue of the birth certificate, and full of the phrase "according to information circultating on the internet."
You do not answer crazy people in court. You file a motion to dismiss.
Have you read the petition? It's a delight, full of numerous allegations beyond the issue of the birth certificate, and full of the phrase "according to information circultating on the internet."
You do not answer crazy people in court. You file a motion to dismiss.
Which was done.
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 09:18 AM
Have you read the petition? It's a delight, full of numerous allegations beyond the issue of the birth certificate, and full of the phrase "according to information circultating on the internet."
You do not answer crazy people in court. You file a motion to dismiss.
I guess if you have the time and money, that's one way to approach the case.
Me personally, if someone questioned my birth in the US, I would simply show up in court with my birth certificate.
Judge looks at the certificate and the case is over.
Now if you have something to hide, you may want the first option?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 09:21 AM
I guess if you have the time and money, that's one way to approach the case.
Me personally, if someone questioned my birth in the US, I would simply show up in court with my birth certificate.
Judge looks at the certificate and the case is over.
Now if you have something to hide, you may want the first option?
I ask you again, have you read the petition? Berg wants a lot more than that.
Obama has, btw, shown his birth certificate which the state of Hawaii has stated is genuine. What more do you want?
You obviously know little about the law if you think any lawyer on the planet would advise you to answer this case.
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 09:43 AM
I ask you again, have you read the petition? Berg wants a lot more than that.
Obama has, btw, shown his birth certificate which the state of Hawaii has stated is genuine. What more do you want?
You obviously know little about the law if you think any lawyer on the planet would advise you to answer this case.
Yes, I've read the entire complaint and the main theme is he doesn't meet the natural born citizen rule (paragraph 3 of the complaint).
You are correct, I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one. However, I stand by my original statement. I would answer the complaint by presenting my birth certificate.
You say Obama has shown his birth certificate. Has he shown it to the court? If so and the court deems the certificate is legitmate, the case should be dismissed.
Warbird
10-24-2008, 10:07 AM
Yes, I've read the entire complaint and the main theme is he doesn't meet the natural born citizen rule (paragraph 3 of the complaint).
You are correct, I'm not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be one. However, I stand by my original statement. I would answer the complaint by presenting my birth certificate.
You say Obama has shown his birth certificate. Has he shown it to the court? If so and the court deems the certificate is legitmate, the case should be dismissed.
The Annenberg Challenge's Factcheck.org examined it and deemed it genuine. I don't think the state's examined it, but I could be wrong.
Have you read the petition? It's a delight, full of numerous allegations beyond the issue of the birth certificate, and full of the phrase "according to information circultating on the internet."
You do not answer crazy people in court. You file a motion to dismiss.
Exactly what I said.... If you play along, every freak from New York to LA will be teking you to court... When it's dismissed, everyone will see you cant get a rise out of him and move on.... It's ridiculous ours courts have to be tied up with this crap...
KLH75287
10-24-2008, 10:32 AM
Your starting to use the liberal way of answering questions.
Someone asks a question about Obama's qualifications and you get an answer or question about Palins qualifications.
I thought this thread was about the lawsuit against Obama. Do we really want to talk about Bush/Cheney - they have less than 3 months left.
You still haven't answered the question - why drag this mess out? Why not produce the documents and put this case behind you?
Note - those questions have nothing to do with the Bush RICO case - lets try and stay on subject here.
EARLY VOTING!
Both camaigns are pushing people to the polls in an effort to avoid any last minute backlashes or discoveries.
Even if this case does have merit, it will be in a long line of lawsuits and civil unrest that await all of us after Nov. 4th.
I will be absolutely amazed if we have an official winner by the end of 2008. I would be willing to bet that there are teams of lawyers from both sides preparing suits on voter fraud and who knows what as we speak.
This deal is a long way from being over. Just like Bush / Gore. Hopefully this time our lame duck administration will still be in the game enough to protect us from another welcoming gift to the new POTUS like Bush got with 9/11
rwilleby
10-24-2008, 10:34 AM
Simple question... simple answer... this could have been resolved a long time ago...
rwilleby
10-24-2008, 10:39 AM
...but the factcheck site does appear to answer the question...
Is our legal system that crappy that they can't find out where a guy......not just a guy....possibly the next PRESIDENT was born? We ALL fail.:rolleyes:
KLH75287
10-24-2008, 10:43 AM
...but the factcheck site does appear to answer the question...
Factcheck has already been proven to be less than accurate on several things. I wouldn't rely too heavily on them.
drgnbkr
10-24-2008, 11:19 AM
Kinkos is a Canon national account and I know that Canon has high click charges therefore Kinkos charges almost 40x more than what an actual copy costs. They should have gone with Ricoh. We know that the $650MILLION+ hasn't been enough for the messiah snce he has asked all his donors to each donate $10 more since they're scrapping for cash. Thus you have your answer.
Obama SUCKS
Sound logic!:p
pack75
10-24-2008, 11:29 AM
[QUOTE=SaRattlerFan;945724]Your starting to use the liberal way of answering questions.
Someone asks a question about Obama's qualifications and you get an answer or question about Palins qualifications.
I thought this thread was about the lawsuit against Obama. Do we really want to talk about Bush/Cheney - they have less than 3 months left.
You still haven't answered the question - why drag this mess out? Why not produce the documents and put this case behind you?
Note - those questions have nothing to do with the Bush RICO case - lets try and stay on subject here[QUOTE].
The first bold sentence sounds like something a kid would say...it's called answering a question, with a question...I didn't know liberals were the only ones to do this.:rolleyes:
The second bold sentence is just funny...I can't believe you, out of all people are trying to tell pied to stay on subject.:rolleyes:
the_phoenix612
10-24-2008, 11:30 AM
EARLY VOTING!
Both camaigns are pushing people to the polls in an effort to avoid any last minute backlashes or discoveries.
Even if this case does have merit, it will be in a long line of lawsuits and civil unrest that await all of us after Nov. 4th.
I will be absolutely amazed if we have an official winner by the end of 2008. I would be willing to bet that there are teams of lawyers from both sides preparing suits on voter fraud and who knows what as we speak.
This deal is a long way from being over. Just like Bush / Gore. Hopefully this time our lame duck administration will still be in the game enough to protect us from another welcoming gift to the new POTUS like Bush got with 9/11
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/gallup124.gif
Obama continues to dominate among independent voters – he leads by a 56% to 30% margin over McCain among those voters – and among those who have already cast their ballots. Those who have already voted now comprise more than 10% of the Zogby sample, and Obama holds a 20–point lead in that category. Among those who are new voters – registering in the last 6 months – the Democrat holds a 69% to 26% edge over McCain.
So I guess that strategy isnt working out so well for the McCaininator...
the_phoenix612
10-24-2008, 11:32 AM
Factcheck has already been proven to be less than accurate on several things. I wouldn't rely too heavily on them.
like what?
pack75
10-24-2008, 11:37 AM
Have you read the petition? It's a delight, full of numerous allegations beyond the issue of the birth certificate, and full of the phrase "according to information circultating on the internet."
You do not answer crazy people in court. You file a motion to dismiss.
Ditto.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 11:37 AM
Your starting to use the liberal way of answering questions.
Someone asks a question about Obama's qualifications and you get an answer or question about Palins qualifications.
I thought this thread was about the lawsuit against Obama. Do we really want to talk about Bush/Cheney - they have less than 3 months left.
You still haven't answered the question - why drag this mess out? Why not produce the documents and put this case behind you?
Note - those questions have nothing to do with the Bush RICO case - lets try and stay on subject here.
I find it fascinating that someone who was in the Pentagon on 9/11 thinks that anyone should answer seriously the questions of a 9/11 troofer.
But I guess now that he hates who you hate, he is a crusader for justice.
This guy is a nut and a loon, as evidenced by the suit he brought against the government for 9/11. He deserves to be treated as such, not taken seriously. Any time a suit has the words "it is alleged on the internet", it deserves to be lauged at.
Warbird
10-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Ditto.
I don't know; we have a guy in Nebraska suing God. I'm not sure if that one got dismissed or not.
pack75
10-24-2008, 11:38 AM
Exactly what I said.... If you play along, every freak from New York to LA will be teking you to court... When it's dismissed, everyone will see you cant get a rise out of him and move on.... It's ridiculous ours courts have to be tied up with this crap...
Good post...very true.
pack75
10-24-2008, 11:44 AM
EARLY VOTING!
Both camaigns are pushing people to the polls in an effort to avoid any last minute backlashes or discoveries.
Even if this case does have merit, it will be in a long line of lawsuits and civil unrest that await all of us after Nov. 4th.
I will be absolutely amazed if we have an official winner by the end of 2008. I would be willing to bet that there are teams of lawyers from both sides preparing suits on voter fraud and who knows what as we speak.
This deal is a long way from being over. Just like Bush / Gore. Hopefully this time our lame duck administration will still be in the game enough to protect us from another welcoming gift to the new POTUS like Bush got with 9/11
I know you might not have meant any harm by this...but as an American, the choice of words used here didn't set well with me.
Be a little more cautious how you word things next time please.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Ok I will roll with you guys that say he shouldn't address the charges by providing his birth certificate. Now, what happens if Obama is elected president of the United States and THEN it is determined that he is not eligible to be president? Is it better to get this out of the way now or wait until he has won/lost the election?
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 11:58 AM
I find it fascinating that someone who was in the Pentagon on 9/11 thinks that anyone should answer seriously the questions of a 9/11 troofer.
But I guess now that he hates who you hate, he is a crusader for justice.
This guy is a nut and a loon, as evidenced by the suit he brought against the government for 9/11. He deserves to be treated as such, not taken seriously. Any time a suit has the words "it is alleged on the internet", it deserves to be lauged at.
Did I have a comment on how Bush/Cheney should answer the RICO case - NO! My comments have been limited to this case.
Have I ever stated that I think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii - NO! I think the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii and I think the simple thing to do is answer the question in court and be done with the case. I did state where there is smoke there is fire and that comment goes to the point by allowing this case to drag on, you are putting doubts in the minds of the American people.
As for BERG - the guy is a lunatic.
Yes I was in the Pentagon on 9/11 and I also served in Iraq - what's your point?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 11:59 AM
Ok I will roll with you guys that say he shouldn't address the charges by providing his birth certificate. Now, what happens if Obama is elected president of the United States and THEN it is determined that he is not eligible to be president? Is it better to get this out of the way now or wait until he has won/lost the election?
Some of you are apparently unfamiliar with the U.S. Justice system. The plaintiff has to provide some sort of evidence of his allegations, the defendant does not have to rebut his claims.
If I want to sue SARattler on the grounds that he is an extraterrestrial from another dimension here to steal my life energy and use it to fuel his army of invading mechanized baboons, SARattler is not required to appear in court with evidence that he is not simply because I alleged it's true.
I need to submit some sort of evidence that he is. Otherwise, it is just the ranting of a nut. It is unreasonable and completely contrary to our justice system to expect anyone to answer baseless charges that are submitted without any sort of accompanying evidence (which Berg has not provided, other than "internet rumors." Asking him to show up and provide all sorts of documents is called a fishing expedition, which is not legal in this country.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 12:00 PM
Did I have a comment on how Bush/Cheney should answer the RICO case - NO! My comments have been limited to this case.
Have I ever stated that I think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii - NO! I think the evidence points to him being born in Hawaii and I think the simple thing to do is answer the question in court and be done with the case. I did state where there is smoke there is fire and that comment goes to the point by allowing this case to drag on, you are putting doubts in the minds of the American people.
As for BERG - the guy is a lunatic.
Yes I was in the Pentagon on 9/11 and I also served in Iraq - what's your point?
Why should anyone be forced or even expected to answer the unsubstantiated charges of a lunatic?
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 12:06 PM
Some of you are apparently unfamiliar with the U.S. Justice system. The plaintiff has to provide some sort of evidence of his allegations, the defendant does not have to rebut his claims.
If I want to sue SARattler on the grounds that he is an extraterrestrial from another dimension here to steal my life energy and use it to fuel his army of invading mechanized baboons, SARattler is not required to appear in court with evidence that he is not simply because I alleged it's true.
I need to submit some sort of evidence that he is. Otherwise, it is just the ranting of a nut. It is unreasonable and completely contrary to our justice system to expect anyone to answer baseless charges that are submitted without any sort of accompanying evidence (which Berg has not provided, other than "internet rumors." Asking him to show up and provide all sorts of documents is called a fishing expedition, which is not legal in this country.
Funny how you use me in your example. First you draw a comparison to my Pentagon 9/11 service and now this? What's next? I suggest you tone it down or this is going to ugly real fast.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 12:07 PM
Some of you are apparently unfamiliar with the U.S. Justice system. The plaintiff has to provide some sort of evidence of his allegations, the defendant does not have to rebut his claims.
If I want to sue SARattler on the grounds that he is an extraterrestrial from another dimension here to steal my life energy and use it to fuel his army of invading mechanized baboons, SARattler is not required to appear in court with evidence that he is not simply because I alleged it's true.
I need to submit some sort of evidence that he is. Otherwise, it is just the ranting of a nut. It is unreasonable and completely contrary to our justice system to expect anyone to answer baseless charges that are submitted without any sort of accompanying evidence (which Berg has not provided, other than "internet rumors." Asking him to show up and provide all sorts of documents is called a fishing expedition, which is not legal in this country.
That's very fair and I agree. Now, what kind of evidence might there be that would suggest that Obama is not eligible to be president? What could I use as evidence to say that Obama is not a natural-born citizen? One would be the fact that his father was a citizen of Kenya (or wherever). One would be that his mom was not 19 when he was born. To be honest I am not sure what the exact criteria for being a natural-born citizen is but I am sure the guy that field the lawsuit does. I agree that he has to have some proof to support his allegations but on the same note I don't think there is ANY proof other than the two points listed, which should be enough.
The bottom line is that I don't want to know what the ramifications of a president being forced to leave office because he was ineligible in the first place.
Funny how you use me in your example. First you draw a comparison to my Pentagon 9/11 service and now this? What's next? I suggest you tone it down or this is going to ugly real fast.
Is it remotely possible that you might be trying to steal Firebird's life force?
If not, I'd suggest you may be over reacting a bit.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 12:10 PM
Why should anyone be forced or even expected to answer the unsubstantiated charges of a lunatic?
My two questions would be:
1. Has he been proven by a legal authority to be a lunatic?
2. If #1 is true do lunatics have the right to file charges in the United States?
Warbird
10-24-2008, 12:13 PM
My two questions would be:
1. Has he been proven by a legal authority to be a lunatic?
2. If #1 is true do lunatics have the right to file charges in the United States?
I think Firebird's point is that they appear to be unsubstantiated. But those two facts (that his father is Kenyan and his mother was not at the proper age) do raise some reasonable doubts, at least in my mind.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 12:15 PM
I think Firebird's point is that they appear to be unsubstantiated. But those two facts (that his father is Kenyan and his mother was not at the proper age) do raise some reasonable doubts, at least in my mind.
Like I said, I have no idea what the criteria is but someone smarter than all of us seems to think Obama does not meat the criteria. Just because Firebird seems to think he is right does not make him right.
pack75
10-24-2008, 12:22 PM
Funny how you use me in your example. First you draw a comparison to my Pentagon 9/11 service and now this? What's next? I suggest you tone it down or this is going to ugly real fast.
LMBO! Sounds like somebody's feathers are getting ruffled.
Man you're thin-skinned...
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 12:26 PM
I was just thinking, if you are running for president of the United States and there is criteria that must be met for that position shouldn't you have to provide the information to support that criteria if it is asked for. Is this really a legal issue?
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 12:29 PM
LMBO! Sounds like somebody's feathers are getting ruffled.
Man you're thin-skinned...
No thin skin here, but if someone wants to compare my service to this country on 9/11 with that of a lunatic lawyer, I'm ready to have that conversation and that conversation may get ugly.
No thin skin here, but if someone wants to compare my service to this country on 9/11 with that of a lunatic lawyer, I'm ready to have that conversation and that conversation may get ugly.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought he was asking you because of that service, why would you be so eager to believe a lunatic lawyer.
Wouldnt our own government... Who do the background checks on ALL the candidates know whether or not he meets the qualifications to be President.. And if he doesnt or any other candidate doesnt for that matter, wouldnt they have said that by now?
pack75
10-24-2008, 01:01 PM
No thin skin here, but if someone wants to compare my service to this country on 9/11 with that of a lunatic lawyer, I'm ready to have that conversation and that conversation may get ugly.
So why the heck did you highlight (bold) this paragraph in your response???:
"If I want to sue SARattler on the grounds that he is an extraterrestrial from another dimension here to steal my life energy and use it to fuel his army of invading mechanized baboons, SARattler is not required to appear in court with evidence that he is not simply because I alleged it's true. "
And this was your response:
"Funny how you use me in your example. First you draw a comparison to my Pentagon 9/11 service and now this? What's next? I suggest you tone it down or this is going to ugly real fast."
Notice the underlined statement from you...sounds like your feathers got ruffled even more when your name was used by Firebird as an extraterrestrial being.:eek:
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:01 PM
Wouldnt our own government... Who do the background checks on ALL the candidates know whether or not he meets the qualifications to be President.. And if he doesnt or any other candidate doesnt for that matter, wouldnt they have said that by now?
I have no idea but I would think this is the first time this has been an issue. Who would be in charge of verifying the candidates credentials?
dragonsdaddy
10-24-2008, 01:32 PM
I have no idea but I would think this is the first time this has been an issue. Who would be in charge of verifying the candidates credentials?
there have been multiple presidential candidates who have run despite not meeting the constitutional requirements.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:34 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought he was asking you because of that service, why would you be so eager to believe a lunatic lawyer.
Bingo. I find it strange to say the least that someone who obviously understands that Philip Berg is crazy and files ridiculous lawsuits now wants someone to take those lawsuits seriously.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:35 PM
there have been multiple presidential candidates who have run despite not meeting the constitutional requirements.
Did no one catch it or did no one care?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:36 PM
My two questions would be:
1. Has he been proven by a legal authority to be a lunatic?
2. If #1 is true do lunatics have the right to file charges in the United States?
Anyone has the right to file a lawsuit in the United States, and people on the recieving end of those lawsuits have the right to request that they be dismissed, which is what the Obama camp has done.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:36 PM
Bingo. I find it strange to say the least that someone who obviously understands that Philip Berg is crazy and files ridiculous lawsuits now wants someone to take those lawsuits seriously.
Let me ask, if Obama was found to not be a natural-born citizen would you still want him to have the capability of being president of the United States?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:37 PM
That's very fair and I agree. Now, what kind of evidence might there be that would suggest that Obama is not eligible to be president? What could I use as evidence to say that Obama is not a natural-born citizen? One would be the fact that his father was a citizen of Kenya (or wherever). One would be that his mom was not 19 when he was born. To be honest I am not sure what the exact criteria for being a natural-born citizen is but I am sure the guy that field the lawsuit does. I agree that he has to have some proof to support his allegations but on the same note I don't think there is ANY proof other than the two points listed, which should be enough.
The bottom line is that I don't want to know what the ramifications of a president being forced to leave office because he was ineligible in the first place.
You would be wrong.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:38 PM
Anyone has the right to file a lawsuit in the United States, and people on the recieving end of those lawsuits have the right to request that they be dismissed, which is what the Obama camp has done.
So calling him a lunatic served no purpose?
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:41 PM
You would be wrong.
So you are saying the guy that filed the lawsuit does not know what the criteria to be president is? Do you have a personal relationship with that man that would give you inside knowledge of what he does or does not know?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:42 PM
So you are saying the guy that filed the lawsuit does not know what the criteria to be president is? Do you have a personal relationship with that man that would give you inside knowledge of what he does or does not know?
I've read his petition, which is full of craziness and fails to cite the relevant U.S. Code.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:49 PM
I think Firebird's point is that they appear to be unsubstantiated. But those two facts (that his father is Kenyan and his mother was not at the proper age) do raise some reasonable doubts, at least in my mind.
Those two facts are completely irrelevant because Obama has always claimed he was born in Hawaii, which makes him a natural born U.S. citizen regardless of his parentage. The only time those factors would come into play is if he was born in Kenya, which is what Berg claims without any supporting evidence, other than his allegations that the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is fradulent. Those allegations are also presented without any substantive evidence.
Thus, the whole petition is merely a fishing expedition filed by the type of person who would attempt to charge President Bush for planning 9/11.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:50 PM
I've read his petition, which is full of craziness and fails to cite the relevant U.S. Code.
Still doesn't mean he doesn't know what the criteria is right? I'm sure he has other motives for putting the other "craziness" but all the average American would be concerned with would be the presidential candidate criteria.
SaRattlerFan
10-24-2008, 01:53 PM
Those two facts are completely irrelevant because Obama has always claimed he was born in Hawaii, which makes him a natural born U.S. citizen regardless of his parentage. The only time those factors would come into play is if he was born in Kenya, which is what Berg claims without any supporting evidence, other than his allegations that the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is fradulent. Those allegations are also presented without any substantive evidence.
Thus, the whole petition is merely a fishing expedition filed by the type of person who would attempt to charge President Bush for planning 9/11.
Berg is now saying he has a recorded phone call from Obama's Kenyan Grandmother that states he was born in Kenya.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:54 PM
Those two facts are completely irrelevant because Obama has always claimed he was born in Hawaii, which makes him a natural born U.S. citizen regardless of his parentage. The only time those factors would come into play is if he was born in Kenya, which is what Berg claims without any supporting evidence, other than his allegations that the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth is fradulent. Those allegations are also presented without any substantive evidence.
Thus, the whole petition is merely a fishing expedition filed by the type of person who would attempt to charge President Bush for planning 9/11.
So the only way to disprove the man that filed the charges is to have the Certificate of Live Birth reviewed for authenticity. I think that is a fair request to verify one of the requirements for being president right?
Firebird
10-24-2008, 01:56 PM
So the only way to disprove the man that filed the charges is to have the Certificate of Live Birth reviewed for authenticity. I think that is a fair request to verify one of the requirements for being president right?
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
You continually exhibit any understanding of the justice system. The defendant does not have to "disprove" the plaintiffs allegation, the plaintiff has to prove his, which he has not.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:56 PM
Berg is now saying he has a recorded phone call from Obama's Kenyan Grandmother that states he was born in Kenya.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931
Is World Net Daily a credible new source?
:rolleyes:
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 01:58 PM
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
We are talking about a man running for president here. What if it is true Bird? Do you know with 100% certainty that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 02:00 PM
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
You continually exhibit any understanding of the justice system. The defendant does not have to "disprove" the plaintiffs allegation, the plaintiff has to prove his, which he has not.
I would love to see the documents verifying the past presidents that DragonsDaddy says were not eligible to be president.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 02:00 PM
We are talking about a man running for president here. What if it is true Bird? Do you know with 100% certainty that Obama was born in Hawaii?
Do you know with 100% certainty that John McCain was not replaced by a clone pod person who is going to hand over control of the United States to the plant kingdom, and people will be used as fertilizer? Prove he is not.
Simply asking him to surrender his records from his last medical examination would easily disprove it. I think someone should file that suit and make McCain appear and prove he is not a plant pod person.
KLH75287
10-24-2008, 02:01 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/gallup124.gif
Obama continues to dominate among independent voters – he leads by a 56% to 30% margin over McCain among those voters – and among those who have already cast their ballots. Those who have already voted now comprise more than 10% of the Zogby sample, and Obama holds a 20–point lead in that category. Among those who are new voters – registering in the last 6 months – the Democrat holds a 69% to 26% edge over McCain.
So I guess that strategy isnt working out so well for the McCaininator...
You missed the point. The early voting numbers are up all over the country with most counties reporting record voter turnout thus far. My point was it favors BOTH campaigns in order to shield them from last minute fallouts and discoveries.
One day you will be a little more discerning about where you get your info, and won't believe everything you hear from the spin doctors.
About your question on FactCheck...
-------------------------
FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.
FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.
As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)
The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:
It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.
If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.
Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).
FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."
Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).
Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."
The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.
Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.
It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)
Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?
FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.
FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.
The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."
FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.
What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.
FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."
This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?
And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)
I'm sure there are other cases where their info was less than factual.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 02:01 PM
Is World Net Daily a credible new source?
:rolleyes:
No.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 02:02 PM
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
You continually exhibit any understanding of the justice system. The defendant does not have to "disprove" the plaintiffs allegation, the plaintiff has to prove his, which he has not.
I agree I am clueless when it comes to this stuff. Let's say that you needed someone to prove their citizenship in court. How would you go about doing that? Are you saying it isn't possible? If this gentleman actually has a tape of the grandmother saying Obama was born in Kenya would that be enough?
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 02:03 PM
Do you know with 100% certainty that John McCain was not replaced by a clone pod person who is going to hand over control of the United States to the plant kingdom, and people will be used as fertilizer? Prove he is not.
Simply asking him to surrender his records from his last medical examination would easily disprove it. I think someone should file that suit and make McCain appear and prove he is not a plant pod person.
Ha ha ha ha you are getting silly now. It is much more fun and easy to be silly.
If someone suggests that McCain was replaced by a clone then I am sure it would be investigated.
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 02:04 PM
No.
Proof? Do remember that you have to provide proof.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 02:08 PM
Ha ha ha ha you are getting silly now. It is much more fun and easy to be silly.
If someone suggests that McCain was replaced by a clone then I am sure it would be investigated.
I just did. I think I'll file a suit in federal court and ask for his medical records.
Firebird
10-24-2008, 02:23 PM
Ha ha ha ha you are getting silly now. It is much more fun and easy to be silly.
If someone suggests that McCain was replaced by a clone then I am sure it would be investigated.
It's not silly at all to suggest that almost 50 years ago, Obama's relatives launched an extrordinarily complicated plot to ensure that Obama would keep his eligibility to one day become POTUS. This plot involved lying in a believable fashion to Hawaii state officials and taking out spurious birth announcements in the Honolulu newspaper, which would be conveniently found 48 years later. The Obama campaign continues to depend on co-conspirators in the Hawaii records buerau who are willing to either issue a false birth certificate or vouch for the autheniticity of a falsified one.
No, that is not at all silly.
the_phoenix612
10-24-2008, 02:35 PM
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
You continually exhibit any understanding of the justice system. The defendant does not have to "disprove" the plaintiffs allegation, the plaintiff has to prove his, which he has not.
kinda like the existence of god?
:ninja:
Fleeman93
10-24-2008, 03:06 PM
It's not silly at all to suggest that almost 50 years ago, Obama's relatives launched an extrordinarily complicated plot to ensure that Obama would keep his eligibility to one day become POTUS. This plot involved lying in a believable fashion to Hawaii state officials and taking out spurious birth announcements in the Honolulu newspaper, which would be conveniently found 48 years later. The Obama campaign continues to depend on co-conspirators in the Hawaii records buerau who are willing to either issue a false birth certificate or vouch for the autheniticity of a falsified one.
No, that is not at all silly.
Come on dude you are smarter than that.
Come on dude you are smarter than that.
I think he is hoping we all are. He might be wrong.
KLH75287
10-24-2008, 03:20 PM
kinda like the existence of god?
:ninja:
or proving there's not one. You can't.
I've had people ask me to prove God exist, and I simply say that I can't prove it to them, but will gladly tell them how He proved himself to me.
If you want to have that conversation PM me.
cougmantx
10-24-2008, 04:18 PM
My sister was born in France...I guess she French...:confused:
My brother was born in France...he hates the French.
cougmantx
10-24-2008, 04:27 PM
The FEC verifies candidates eligibility, not private citizens. You cannot allow every person with an axe to grind or a theory have a shot in court at a candidate.
You continually exhibit any understanding of the justice system. The defendant does not have to "disprove" the plaintiffs allegation, the plaintiff has to prove his, which he has not.
This goes to the point concerning just how far both parties will go to win an election.
I would be extremly concerned there is a Congressman out there making these alligations on such flimsy, hear say, or worse yet, made up alligations and there is a part of the country that put him in office.
When our elected officals behave in a manner so adgredgous as to call into account the intelligence of the people that elected them, then it is time for them to go...I think this is a perfect example of such a situation.
pack75
10-24-2008, 04:35 PM
Is World Net Daily a credible new source?
:rolleyes:
In this case, it is credible...but if it were bashing McCain, then no way on Earth would it be credible!:rolleyes:
Warbird
10-24-2008, 07:25 PM
In this case, it is credible...but if it were bashing McCain, then no way on Earth would it be credible!:rolleyes:
Sort of like how, if it comes from Fox News it's not credible because Fox is the propaganda arm of the RNC, eh?
I just did. I think I'll file a suit in federal court and ask for his medical records.
I bet he'd turn 'em over. Go ahead, I'd actually like to see this happen. I mean, honestly, as long as McCain's health (and citizenship with the "canal zone" concern) became issues, this is hardly the stuff of conspiracies and making certain that Barack is, in fact a U.S. citizen is well within bounds. Certainly no more out of bounds than Democrats in 04 claiming that Bush would institute a draft or Bush's DUI being dragged up at the last minute.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.