Anyway one looks at this, it is news.Any way anyone with intelligence looks at this, it is small-minded bull*expletive deleted*e.
Anyway anyone with intelligence looks at this, it is small-minded bull*expletive deleted*e.
I despise Obama as much as anyone, but the "conspiracy theory" behind his birthplace is one of the dumbest, stupidest, wastes of time, effort and breath I've ever encountered.
According to the article, the proceedings in Georgia aren't about his place of birth.:facepalm:
Could someone explain how the citizenship challenges are small-minded or petty? Unfounded or counterfactual, I wouldn't argue with. But petty? How so?
According to the article, the proceedings in Georgia aren't about his place of birth.
Could someone explain how the citizenship challenges are small-minded or petty? Unfounded or counterfactual, I wouldn't argue with. But petty? How so?
I would also like an answer to this question that is not all juvenile barfy smilies or FONT GONE WILD!!!!111eleventy
For my own part, given that Obama's mother was an American citizen, the matter is closed. But, eligibility for POTUS under the COTUS is hardly petty.
Hey, they PUT optional font styles and barfy smilies on, I use 'em! You don't have to read my posts. :-* [popcorn]
It may not matter today, but if he's re-elected you'll look back and remember the day...
Obama will not be removed from office if deemed ineligible. Mark the tapes, that is my prediction.
Let's assume for a minute that he's not eligible. I don't personally side with the birthers, but for the sake of debate, let's say he's not.
NO ONE in power, not republicans, not democrats, house or senate, nor judicial, or anyone else in government, has a vested interest in admitting that someone unlawfully took the office of president.
Can you imagine the turmoil?
Yes, let's avoid "turmoil. " That should definitely be Priority One.
What the hell do you think the perps are counting on if not our apathy and deference to Authority?
This is a theory that's even dumber than the original birther theory - how on earth would the citizenship of Obama's parents have anything to do with his own? He was born in the US; the Constitution is explicit.They're not trying to "weasel out of the Constitution," they just have a hard time believing that a loonie-lefty like Obama could actually be born in America, is all. [tinfoil] [popcorn]
I'm not sure why these "patriots" are so eager to weasel out of the Constitution they profess to adore.
I'm convinced there are embarrassing secrets we don't know. I'm also convinced that a) Obama's citizenship isn't one of them, and b) they won't be revealed until he's well out of office, if ever.
If there was any basis to the birthers' claims (which I don't believe to be the case anyhow), everyone in power would quietly sweep it under the rug.Would . . . or is? [tinfoil]
This is a theory that's even dumber than the original birther theory - how on earth would the citizenship of Obama's parents have anything to do with his own? He was born in the US; the Constitution is explicit.
I'm not sure why these "patriots" are so eager to weasel out of the Constitution they profess to adore.
I'm not sure why these "patriots" are so eager to weasel out of the Constitution they profess to adore.
Their theory is that he was not actually born in the US.
Because some people believe the Constitution contains inside it magic IWIN buttons they can mash, secret phrases they will invoke - and then their political enemies will just go away.[tinfoil] I know no one who thinks that .... maybe they're too ashamed of themselves to reveal themselves to me ...... :laugh: ...... [tinfoil]............... :angel:
The Constitution does not work like that.
Part of the new theory is that citizenship is passed on by the father and since his father wasn't a US citizen he can't be. Using that theory he is Muslim because the Islamic faith states that the religious beliefs of the father are what are carried on.
Part of the new theory is that citizenship is passed on by the father and since his father wasn't a US citizen he can't be. Using that theory he is Muslim because the Islamic faith states that the religious beliefs of the father are what are carried on.
[/qu [popcorn]ote]
Yes, something like that. Go to WND and see Joe Farah's articles on the subject for more. Read other articles by another writer on WND (Cashill?) to find that Obama is a gay Kenyan Muslim. [popcorn]
Part of the new theory is that citizenship is passed on by the father and since his father wasn't a US citizen he can't be. Using that theory he is Muslim because the Islamic faith states that the religious beliefs of the father are what are carried on.
If he wasn't born in the US, then it would be true that if his father wasn't a citizen, then he can't be.
Then how in the *expletive deleted* do we have several millions of anchor babies in this country? If this is true, then there are millions of them we need to start rounding up and sending south.
This argument won't stick. Even if it does, he could have a second term under his belt before it gets wrangled out of the courts.
Its a distraction, an annoyance, and just plain idiotic.
Obama IS an alien but not by virtue of his natal venue or even his family. Of course he's alien with plenty of alien allies within our own country and especially our own power structure.Yep.
I thought the "birther conspiracies" were symptomatic of the fact that America is just plain going full-blown retard ....... :facepalm: [barf]
Obama IS an alien but not by virtue of his natal venue or even his family. Of course he's alien with plenty of alien allies within our own country and especially our own power structure.
Read it again, J. CNYC said Obama can't be a citizen if his father wasn't and Obama was born outside the US.
Anchor babies are born in the US. They are immediatly US citizens even though their parents are not.
Huh, what? I mean, WTF are you talking about?
Hell, he's a known socialist. I think that's bad enough.
This. Very much this.
How is this different from any of te other conspiracy theories popular in America starting with the 19th century?
What the esteemed and beloved Longeyes meant was clear enough, and, mirabile dictu, even Fistful noted it. :) To wit: Obama is a cultural alien, outside the American (or what at least used to be the American) mainstream culture.
That would have been true maybe 50 years ago. But people who don't wish to be told what to do and how to do it by uncle sam are becoming the minority.
Because too many of them like the free money they are getting.
Because too many of them like the free money they are getting.
You're right: two Americas, the legacy of the last half-century of The (Alleged) Great Society. I hate to bring up the S-word again, but if you have a solution other than a separatist one, I'd really love to hear it. Good Americans sat by while people with an agenda transformed America right under their noses, not only culturally but demographically, since the '60s and now America One is faced with thinking the unthinkable. Well, maybe it isn't so unthinkable, just unpalatable. When things get bad enough--and they are damn close to that now--our minds will become more flexible is my bet.
Look at the laws of almost every state government and they are as or even more onerous than the federal government. Really secession would just mean my wealth being redistributed closer to home to the exact same entitlement class and corporations on the dole.
Personally, I think the republic has outlived its usefulness. We're merely going through the motions at this point, and long overdue for a new form of government.
The Constitution works quite fine, and would work better if people wanted it to.
The problem is at the least, most Americans - most people! - either actively support the welfare state, or tolerate it due to prioritizing other concerns over its abolition.
If you rearrange the formal political constitution you will
a) get a constitution that's a product of this mindset
b) at the best, do no better.
There is nothing wrong with our form of government. The problem lies with the execution of it.
Unanimous republic, where laws may only be passed by the unanimous consent of the houses and signed by the president. Presidential power must be eliminated to only the power of the signature or veto. Anything short will be groundhog day.
We had something like that in the Articles of Confederation. It worked so well that Washington, et al, moved to replace it almost immediately. In fact, they spent a long, hot summer putting their heads together to come up with something better than unanimity. And they couldn't even all agree on that!
The need for a Constitution was not a consensus at the time. It was at razor's edge that it was accomplished.
Personally, I think the republic has outlived its usefulness. We're merely going through the motions at this point, and long overdue for a new form of government.
There is nothing wrong with our form of government. The problem lies with the execution of it.
Unanimous republic, where laws may only be passed by the unanimous consent of the houses and signed by the president. Presidential power must be eliminated to only the power of the signature or veto. Anything short will be groundhog day.
Any sort of limited gov't is impossible without people first having some discipline and governing their own selves. It is no coincidence that gov't has grown as personal virtue has declined. They are parts of the same problem and addressing one without the other is doomed to failure.
You mean the need for a new constitution? Yes. It is also true that the old constitution wasn't ratified until the early 1780s. And by 1787, there was already a (successful) movement to replace it.
Yes, we know this. But [while I prefer the constitution] I don't think it's altogether 'not debatable' that the Federalists were right. Certainly they turned out to be wrong about many of their predictions.
Too bad Gallup's polls do not reflect the political, social, and cultural realities of America in 2012.
"It is not the form of government that is the problem, it is that Americans have degenerated, spent their cultural capital, and then let in a bunch of folks for whom our traditional form of gov't is alien.
Any sort of limited gov't is impossible without people first having some discipline and governing their own selves. It is no coincidence that gov't has grown as personal virtue has declined. They are parts of the same problem and addressing one without the other is doomed to failure."
This.
Secession need not produce mini-welfare states. It could--I say could--permit the citizen to separate from the parasite.
And what is stopping a group of people from finding some uninhabited island somewhere and starting anew?
Ha! People on welfare riot, apparently the taxpaying, law abiding citizen does not. Who do you think gets the s**t end of the government stick? Just hold your nose and keep on voting in scumbag after scumbag, and then wonder "why we so screwed?".
Is there some overpowering reason we can't repeal the welfare state one program at a time over the course of years, the way it was instituted? (Ideally a little faster)The main reason we can't is the failure to elect politicians willing to do so.
I mean seriously, if we have time for a long drawn out collapse, we have time for small gains, then point out the world didn't end and people aren't dieing in the streets, and some more gains. You know: incremental politics.
I swear to God this board hosts some of the giving up-ist folks.
This would not resolve the issue. Indeed, neither would balancing the budget.
The debt is a distraction.
I see no practical solution. It's just going to have to keep on going until our Welfare State collapses by itself, under it's own weight, which it eventually will, in a long drawn out, painful, pathetic sort of way.
Ideally, we would all wake up enlightened one day and perform a complete rollover of government. Vote out, recall and replace EVERYONE on Capitol Hill in a concerted nationwide move. All at once. And by everyone I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRIr9MNmCwU
But that's a pipe dream, so no practical fix I can see. Your thoughts?
This would not resolve the issue. Indeed, neither would balancing the budget.$15,000,000,000,000+++++ is a helluva distraction...... :mad:
The debt is a distraction.
Any hope of resolving our debt problem will entail becoming a moral, honorable, and sober people. I admit I do not see, right now, enough Americans qualifying to attain the critical mass we require for continuing national integrity.
Any hope of resolving our debt problem will entail becoming a moral, honorable, and sober people. I admit I do not see, right now, enough Americans qualifying to attain the critical mass we require for continuing national integrity.
There's plenty of nations that have a balanced - or near-balanced - budget, yet you would never want to live there.
Well, it is possible to have a balanced budget, and then economic grwoth will gradually overtake the debt.
But that will not solve the major social and political problems America is facing.
Well, it is possible to have a balanced budget, and then economic grwoth will gradually overtake the debt.???
But that will not solve the major social and political problems America is facing.
There's plenty of nations that have a balanced - or near-balanced - budget, yet you would never want to live there.
" .... Frankly, I was unimpressed with the presidential defense in pre-hearing arguments. For example, Jablonski tried to deflect the Social Security issue – which, after all, raises serious questions of fraud – by pointing out that “nothing in the Constitution makes … participating in Social Security a prerequisite to serving as president.” .... "