 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / July 2009Obama, Citizen or Not
This is provided for discussion purposes only. I have not researched it and make no claims regarding whether it is true or not. It is, however, interesting and, if true, damning. Subject: ATTENTION — WHOA !! OBAMA'S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS FROM OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE.. AN EYE OPENER This will warm your heart just thinking of all those years most of you worked to provide an education for yourself or your children, when you could have been as smart as our President and accomplished it for NADA!! Lets all gaze into our crystal balls and play "what if". THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL, IT IS HAPPENING AT LAST... Subject: WHOA !! OBAMA'S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS FROM OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE..AN EYE OPENER In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter. LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS THE MEDIA WON'T EMBRACE! NEITHER ONE OF THE OBAMA PAIR HAD TIME TO GET A REAL JOB AND WORK FOR A PAY CHECK. THEY WERE TOO BUSY LOOKING FOR FREE MONEY AND GRANTS. WE PAID THE BALANCE ON THEIR EDUCATION AND TRAVEL ________________________________________________ A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis > This is provided for discussion purposes only. I have not researched it and > make no claims regarding whether it is true or not. It is, however, > interesting and, if true, damning. Does it take too long to check snopes.com each time? In my opinion, it makes you look ridiculous. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occidental.asp And in everyone else's with a brain too. >> This is provided for discussion purposes only. =A0I have not researched i= >t and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occidental.asp > This is provided for discussion purposes only. I have not researched it and > make no claims regarding whether it is true or not. It is, however, > interesting and, if true, damning. Interesting in only that they're invariably 100% full of crap. Shitcan this OT crap, please, so that you won't have to be. -hh Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by everyone except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up to believing it, just like every irresponsible a.s that posts crap like this. Once a loser always a loser. >This is provided for discussion purposes only. I have not researched it and >make no claims regarding whether it is true or not. It is, however, [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. >Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis > Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by everyone > except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up to believing > it, just like every irresponsible a.s that posts crap like this. Once > a loser always a loser. Oh look, another lying leftist bigot shitbag punk crawled back in. You and Mossman should get along just fine. <pahlunk> >> Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by everyone >> except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up to believing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You and Mossman should get along just fine. Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the democrats aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. This is just paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part >>> Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by everyone >>> except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up to believing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't > you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Actually, there have been. As far as I can tell, none of htem have been heard at the Supreme Court level. At this point, I don't know that it would really matter though as the only real alternative would be to kick out Barack and let Joe take over. That might be an even worse position. > Even the > democrats aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. Any politician would be dumb enough if he thought he could get away with it. Party doesn't matter. > This is just paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part >>>> Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by everyone >>>> except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up to believing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > would really matter though as the only real alternative would be to kick > out Barack and let Joe take over. That might be an even worse position. You mean there are people in America who actually believe that Obama is not eligible? WOW > You mean there are people in America who actually believe that Obama > is not eligible? WOW Correct... Of course, Bama-Boy could have squashed all those rumors by simply releasing an original birth certificate... For whatever reasons, he hasn't...  SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> You mean there are people in America who actually believe that Obama >> is not eligible? WOW > > Correct... Of course, Bama-Boy could have squashed all those rumors by > simply releasing an original birth certificate... For whatever reasons, he > hasn't... Why cater for the morons in society is probably Obama's pov > Why cater for the morons in society is probably Obama's pov Perhaps, or maybe he has something to hide... It would be a simple matter to squash all the rumors by releasing an original birth certificate... If he's not releasing it, it probably means he has something to hide... That something might have something to do with his eligibility or it might just be something else that he would rather not be made public... The "birth certificate" that they did release is not an original and as such, there could be many situations where a person might have that type of birth certificate and not be eligible for office... If a kid was adopted, he would have a similar birth certificate... If a kid was born out of the country, he would have a similar birth certificate... Unless there is something embarrassing on the birth certificate, he would have to be an idiot to not release it... Hmmm... Although many of us might think that he's an idiot, I doubt that this is the case in this particular instance... I really suspect that he has something on it that he is embarrassed about... It might not affect his eligibility, but it is something that he probably feels embarrassed about... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. Snip it isn't my HOS but do some people really believe it is not septic > Snip > > it isn't my HOS but do some people really believe it is not septic Could you rephrase that into something that actually makes sense in American English? >> Snip >> >> it isn't my HOS but do some people really believe it is not septic > > Could you rephrase that into something that actually makes sense in > American English? doesn't even make sense in Aus english >> Why cater for the morons in society is probably Obama's pov > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > embarrassed about... It might not affect his eligibility, but it is > something that he probably feels embarrassed about... I suspect that he just doesn't want to release his personal information to teh public because some nutjobs think he might not be qualified for his current position. Plus, he obviously doesn't need to release it as he's already the president. Why would you release personal documents when you don't have a specific need to do so? >>> Why cater for the morons in society is probably Obama's pov >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Why would you release personal documents when you don't have a specific > need to do so? Fuckfish and Mossman are shining examples of that one. > > I suspect that he just doesn't want to release his personal information to > > teh public because some nutjobs think he might not be qualified for his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Fuckfish and Mossman are shining examples of that one. What was that, trailer boy? You're babbling again. Be careful, or HH might report you! > I suspect that he just doesn't want to release his personal > information to teh public because some nutjobs think he might not be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why would you release personal documents when you don't have a > specific need to do so? If he is qualified, there should be no reason for him not to release the information unless there is something else on there that although doesn't disqualify him, it is embarrassing for him... Maybe something like father listed as "unknown"? SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > I suspect that he just doesn't want to release his personal information to > teh public because some nutjobs think he might not be qualified for his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why would you release personal documents when you don't have a specific > need to do so? I would do it to resolve the question. He obviously does not see the need. What I want to know is why the court system, when the matter was brought before them, did not force him to produce the document. Lee Re: "It would be a simple matter to squash all the rumors by releasing an original birth certificate.." It would be impossible. If Obama does not have a copy of his original birth certificate, and he may have lost it--as many of us do--then he cannot get a copy of the original because Hawaii doesn't send it out anymore. It only sends the short-form certification of live birth. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html However, the short-form certification is the legal birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is accepted by all the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii, and it is accepted by the US State Department as proof of birth in the USA for issuing passports. >>>>> Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by >>>>> everyone except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You mean there are people in America who actually believe that Obama > is not eligible? WOW There are people in America who believe that Elvis is still alive. Believing that a politician lied is far from being "wow" worthy. >>>>>> Never mind that all this drivel has been roundly refuted by >>>>>> everyone except extreme nutbars like Bell, who won't even own up [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > There are people in America who believe that Elvis is still alive. isn't he? f.ck there goes my booking for a singer at my daughters wedding ( in Elvis tradition to her 11 year old cousin ) :-) > f.ck there goes my booking for a singer at my daughters wedding ( in > Elvis tradition to her 11 year old cousin ) :-) I think you're mistaking Elvis for Jerry Lee Lewis... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in news:imE_l.135$cl4.84 @flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com: > There are people in America who believe that Elvis is still alive. > > Believing that a politician lied is far from being "wow" worthy. There are even people who believe in the Scientology drivel... Compared to that, believing that Elvis is alive is quite easy... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Actually, there have been. As far as I can tell, none of htem have been > heard at the Supreme Court level. At this point, I don't know that it > would really matter though as the only real alternative would be to kick > out Barack and let Joe take over. That might be an even worse position. That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. >> Actually, there have been. As far as I can tell, none of htem have >> been heard at the Supreme Court level. At this point, I don't know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. Isn't it? If the president is found to be unfit for office (including unqualified), then the vice president becomes president. Why would you think this situation should be different? There aren't, as far as I know, specific instructions for dealing with a candidate who has already been elected and later deemed unqualified to hold the position. >> That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > specific instructions for dealing with a candidate who has already been > elected and later deemed unqualified to hold the position. Unless you think the vice president would have been elected if he had run alone, then no, that's not what should happen. If Obama beat McCain in a contest that Obama was not qualified to participate in, either McCain should be declared the winner, or the contest should be repeated, this time with qualified opponents. In most contests, when the winner is disqualified, the runner up gets the win, no the disqualified winner's understudy. Lee >>> That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > either McCain should be declared the winner, or the contest should be > repeated, this time with qualified opponents. Where does it say that in the Constitution? > In most contests, when the winner is disqualified, the runner up gets > the win, no the disqualified winner's understudy. "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. > Lee > >>> That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. Besides the Constitution, Lee's illogical "solution" also fails to note the party system. Hypothetically say the vote ended up 1% McCain, 99% Obama, showing an overwhelming bias toward the liberal candidate. In such a case, Lee's simple "solution" would thwart the will of 99% of the populace. Obviously the split between Obama and McCain wasn't as drastic, but a clear majority of the American people voted for the Democrat candidate, not the Republican one. It's just as logical, if not more so, to instead let the runner-up Democrat candidate take over. Hillary for President! > Besides the Constitution, Lee's illogical "solution" also fails to > note the party system. Hypothetically say the vote ended up 1% [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as logical, if not more so, to instead let the runner-up Democrat > candidate take over. Hillary for President! I think that you underestimate that amount of hate that many people have for Hillary... Even with as lackluster of a candidate as McCain, it would have been a very close race against Hillary... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > > Besides the Constitution, Lee's illogical "solution" also fails to > > note the party system. Hypothetically say the vote ended up 1% [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for Hillary... Even with as lackluster of a candidate as McCain, it would > have been a very close race against Hillary... If you think Obama was successful at getting out the black vote, you can imagine what Hillary could have done with the support of the women of this country. Last I checked, there were as many of them as there are of us. > If you think Obama was successful at getting out the black vote, you > can imagine what Hillary could have done with the support of the women > of this country. Last I checked, there were as many of them as there > are of us. Nawh, Hillary would have only been successful in getting out the dike vote... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Besides the Constitution, Lee's illogical "solution" also fails to >> note the party system. Hypothetically say the vote ended up 1% >> McCain, 99% Obama, showing an overwhelming bias toward the liberal >> candidate. In such a case, Lee's simple "solution" would thwart the >> will of 99% of the populace. As usual, Greg's wrong. What I said should happen is that either the contest should go to the runner up, or it should be run again. In the kind of landslide he describes, the obvious choice is to try again. >> Obviously the split between Obama and >> McCain wasn't as drastic, but a clear majority of the American people >> voted for the Democrat candidate, not the Republican one. Since there are documented instances of massive voter fraud, it's not clear at all. > I think that you underestimate that amount of hate that many people have > for Hillary... Even with as lackluster of a candidate as McCain, it would > have been a very close race against Hillary... Not to mention that Sarah would have had a field day with her. > >> Besides the Constitution, Lee's illogical "solution" also fails to > >> note the party system. Hypothetically say the vote ended up 1% [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > As usual, Greg's wrong. If you're going to killfile me, don't debate me. Make up your mind. Of course I'm not wrong. You suggested the runner up. I pointed out why that's stupid. > What I said should happen is that either the contest should go to the runner > up, or it should be run again. In the kind of landslide he describes, the > obvious choice is to try again. There is no "obvious" choice in any situation because all situations are different. We need a bright line rule. The constitution provides one. Any of your simple solutions are arbitrary, therefore illogical. > >> Obviously the split between Obama and > >> McCain wasn't as drastic, but a clear majority of the American people > >> voted for the Democrat candidate, not the Republican one. > > Since there are documented instances of massive voter fraud, it's not clear > at all. You mean like all the documented voter fraud that gave George W. Bush the 2000 win? Deal with it. We did. Now it's our turn. > > I think that you underestimate that amount of hate that many people have > > for Hillary... Even with as lackluster of a candidate as McCain, it would > > have been a very close race against Hillary... > > Not to mention that Sarah would have had a field day with her. The dumb bimbo with family problems? How, exactly, would a community college educated bimbo who demonstrated that she's absolutely clueless on the issues, possibly have a "field day" with an extremely intelligent and experienced political strategist? Was she going to challenge Hillary to a mud wrestle? >>>> That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should happen. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Where does it say that in the Constitution? It doesn't, which is why it's probably not what would happen. It's still what should happen. >> In most contests, when the winner is disqualified, the runner up gets >> the win, no the disqualified winner's understudy. > > "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. Neither, apparently, was this one. >>>>> That's probably what would happen, but it's not what should >>>>> happen. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It doesn't, which is why it's probably not what would happen. It's > still what should happen. No, it's not what "should" happen. What "should" happen is exactly what the Constitution says "should" happen. If you think that the Constitution "should" be changed to incorporate the situation described with a different outcome, then that's perfectly acceptable, but to claim that a situation that is controlled by the Constitution should have an outcome different from what the Constitution says is, IMO, not an acceptable solution. YMMV. >>> In most contests, when the winner is disqualified, the runner up >>> gets the win, no the disqualified winner's understudy. >> >> "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. > > Neither, apparently, was this one. Do you have proof that he isn't a a natural born citizen? If not, I can't see the problem. Especially with everything that's been released claiming he is a natural born US citizen. >>> Where does it say that in the Constitution? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > different from what the Constitution says is, IMO, not an acceptable > solution. YMMV. Obviously, I do think that's what should happen and, no surprise, I hope, I have the right to say so. Not everything that happens according to the Constitution, or the rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but because we're a nation of law, it's what usually does happen. >>> "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. >> Neither, apparently, was this one. > > Do you have proof that he isn't a a natural born citizen? Do you have proof that he is? If not, then you can't say it was according to the Constitution, can you. Do you even think for a minute that there was no voter fraud, that there were no unqualified voters that contributed to the victory? If not, then you know it was not according to the Constitution, don't you? >>>> Where does it say that in the Constitution? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but > because we're a nation of law, it's what usually does happen. As a nation of law, everything that happens according to that law is exactly what "should" happen. >>>> "Most" contests aren't controlled by the US Constitution. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Do you have proof that he is? I've seen a reasonable amount to quell any concerns I might have had. Birth Certificate... check Birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper... check. If you require more than that, then I'd say it would be pretty tough for any of us to prove that we're natural born citizens. > If not, then you can't say it was > according to the Constitution, can you. The Constitution dictates the rules. So, yes, it was "according to" the Constitution. > Do you even think for a minute that there was no voter fraud, that > there were no unqualified voters that contributed to the victory? I think that the election of the president went EXACTLY the way the Constitution said it should. The states chose electors and those electors voted for the president, exactly the way the Constitution said they should. Were there issues within hte individual states that may have changed the outcome? I have no proof that there were. Was there voter fraud in some instances. I have no proof that there was, but I also believe that it existed even though I have no proof simply because there are so many voters and no centralized/standardized way to keep track of all of them. Plus, the fact that a certain percentage of people are dishonest enough to do exactly that kind of thing makes me believe that a certain percentage of people did exactly that. At this point, it no longer matters unless you want Joe Biden to become president. > Birth Certificate... check > Birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper... check. > > If you require more than that, then I'd say it would be pretty tough > for any of us to prove that we're natural born citizens. Assuming that those are true, that would only prove that he is a citizen... It doesn't prove that he is a "natural born citizen"... Unfortunately, there are conflicting definitions to what that entails... Neither of the two candidates wanted to open up that can of worms though... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Birth Certificate... check >> Birth announcement in the Hawaiian newspaper... check. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > entails... Neither of the two candidates wanted to open up that can > of worms though... Well, if he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the newspaper announcement claim, then how could he *not* be a natural born citizen? > Well, if he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the > newspaper announcement claim, then how could he *not* be a natural > born citizen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen <quote> The term "natural born Citizen" has never been defined by the Courts in the course of a Presidential qualification challenge. It is believed by some that this provision means that only persons born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens are “natural born Citizens” of the nation and eligible to become President. There are others who believe that anyone who acquires citizenship by any means other than naturalization is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible for the Presidency. In between these extremes lie gray areas, some controversy, and various obiter dicta from the courts. A majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility clause incorporates both common-law (jus soli) and English statutory (jus sanguinis) principles. </quote> The Founding Fathers wanted the Commander in Chief of the Army to be completely free of foreign influence -- that is why they put the "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution... Unfortunately, they slipped up and failed to define it such that it couldn't be interpreted differently than they intended... Using the most conservative definition of "natural born citizen", Bama-Boy was not qualified to run... McCain would be opening up a can of worms though if he sued on that since his claim to be a "natural born citizen" is only slightly better than Bama- Boy's since he was born outside of the US (although to two parents who are definitely US citizens)... The Supremes have failed to hear various cases because they claim that the claimants do not have any standing with which to sue -- in other words, only McCain could sue... I suspect that the Supremes also just don't want to get involved in this... They are pretty good at going to a lot of effort to ensure that they do the least amount of actual work each year... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Well, if he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the newspaper > announcement claim, then how could he *not* be a natural born citizen? If the government has been presented with an official birth certificate, directly from the agency in Hawaii responsible for providing them, he's met the same standard that I had to meet to be a government employee. As far as I now, that has not happened. One has to ask why not. > > Well, if he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the newspaper > > announcement claim, then how could he *not* be a natural born citizen? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the same standard that I had to meet to be a government employee. As far as > I now, that has not happened. What you don't "now" would obviously fill volumes. > > Well, if he was born in Hawaii, as the birth certificate and the newspaper > > announcement claim, then how could he *not* be a natural borncitizen? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > One has to ask why not. Because NO president has ever presented his birth certificate to the government or a court. There is no existing law that says that a president must do this. There is a bill pending that would make it required for future elections. But this bill only requires a candidate to provide the official birth certificate, not the original birth certificate. Obama was the first president and second candidate (McCain was first) to put his birth certificate on line. The Certification of Live Birth IS the birth certificate of Hawaii. It no longer sends out copies of the original long-form birth certificate. http://www.starbulletin.com/features/20090606_kokua_line.html >> Not everything that happens according to the Constitution, or the >> rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but >> because we're a nation of law, it's what usually does happen. > > As a nation of law, everything that happens according to that law is > exactly what "should" happen. There there's no need for any of the amendments, right? >>> Not everything that happens according to the Constitution, or the >>> rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There there's no need for any of the amendments, right? There's absolutely a need for amendments, because occasionally our idea of "should" changes. When it does, we change the document that dictates what "should" should be. >>>> Not everything that happens according to the Constitution, or the >>>> rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "should" changes. When it does, we change the document that dictates what > "should" should be. Then you've come full circle back to my point. What should happen and what probably will happen are not the same. >>>>> Not everything that happens according to the Constitution, or the >>>>> rest of the country's body of laws, is what should happen, but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Then you've come full circle back to my point. What should happen > and what probably will happen are not the same. No, we haven't. Ocassionally, we decide to change what should happen to something else that should happen. That doesn't change the fact that what "should happen" is exactly what the Constitution says "should happen" at the moment it is being interpreted. >> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message > No, we haven't. Ocassionally, we decide to change what should happen to > something else that should happen. That doesn't change the fact that what > "should happen" is exactly what the Constitution says "should happen" at > the moment it is being interpreted. So "should happen" is simply a matter of convenience, something to be changed by amendment whenever we change our mind about what should happen. Check. Then there's nothing wrong with my statement of what "should happen." It just hasn't been changed yet. Since you did such a good job of looking up the rules on the citizenship issue, I spent a couple seconds looking up the rules on this one, according to the Constitution as originally written. At the time, the Vice President did not ride on the coat tails of the President. He was the runner up, the person that received the second highest number of votes cast in the Presidential election. The United States presidential election of 1789 was the first presidential election in the United States of America, and was the only one to not take place in an even numbered year. The election took place following the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788. The polls opened on December 15, 1788, and closed on January 10, 1789. In this election, George Washington was elected for the first of his two terms as President of the United States, and John Adams became the first Vice President of the United States. Before this election, the United States had no chief executive. Under the previous system-the Articles of Confederation-the national government was headed by the Confederation Congress, which had a ceremonial presiding officer and several executive departments, but no independent executive branch. In this election, the enormously popular Washington essentially ran unopposed. The only real issue to be decided was who would be chosen as vice president. Under the system then in place, each elector cast two votes; if a person received a vote from a majority of the electors, that person became president, and the runner-up became vice president. All 69 electors cast one vote for Washington. Their other votes were divided among eleven other candidates; John Adams received the most, becoming vice president. So, according to the Constitution, the person receiving the second most votes became the Vice President and was the person that took over the job of President if the President was somehow unable to continue. The person that received the second highest number of votes, in our last election, was McCain. By the way, I didn't see anything in my research that indicated that the concept of a President that was not eligible to be one in the first place. I suspect that, had that happened back then, the election that put that person in power would simply have been declared null and void, and everything would have started over . . . or the person receiving the second highest number of votes, would have taken over, which is exactly what I said "should happen." Lee > So, according to the Constitution, the person receiving the second most > votes became the Vice President and was the person that took over the job of > President if the President was somehow unable to continue. The person that > received the second highest number of votes, in our last election, was > McCain. That might have worked back in 1776. Do you think anything has changed since then? Actually, back then, it probably would have been settled by a duel. McCain should be a better shot than Obama with his military training, but he's feeble and has bad arms while Obama is in prime physical condition, so who knows? Maybe a modern version of the duel could be an eye-gouging, chair-breaking "wrestling match" spectacle like the WWF, which would please McCain's NASCAR supporters immensely as they witnessed their champion get tossed over the ropes by the Obammer Hammer! > By the way, I didn't see anything in my research that indicated that the > concept of a President that was not eligible to be one in the first place. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > highest number of votes, would have taken over, which is exactly what I said > "should happen." What is your training in constitutional research and analysis? Uh, thought so. So the fact that you didn't "see anything" doesn't mean anything, does it? >>> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > happen. Check. Then there's nothing wrong with my statement of what > "should happen." It just hasn't been changed yet. Then it isn't what "should happen" yet. If you want to say that it "should" be changed, then so be it. > Since you did such a good job of looking up the rules on the > citizenship issue, I spent a couple seconds looking up the rules on > this one, according to the Constitution as originally written. At > the time, the Vice President did not ride on the coat tails of the > President. He was the runner up, the person that received the second > highest number of votes cast in the Presidential election. It's in the 12th Amendment. Each elector is supposed to vote for a president and a vice president in distinct (separate) ballots. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the electors for Obama probably didn't vote for McCain to be vice president. Otherwise, he probably would be. > The United States presidential election of 1789 was the first > presidential election in the United States of America, and was the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > States, and John Adams became the first Vice President of the United > States. There's some interesting trivia. > Before this election, the United States had no chief executive. Under the > previous system-the Articles of Confederation-the national [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > eleven other candidates; John Adams received the most, becoming vice > president. There's an interesting history lesson. > So, according to the Constitution, the person receiving the second > most votes became the Vice President and was the person that took > over the job of President if the President was somehow unable to > continue. The second most votes out of two ballots. > The person that received the second highest number of > votes, in our last election, was McCain. Ahhh, but the 12th amendment changed the rules. Now, each elector casts two ballots, but instead of both ballots being for president, one is for president and hte other is for vice president. I'm guessing that McCain didn't receive the most vice president ballots in his favor. It would have been quite amusing if Palin had though. > By the way, I didn't see anything in my research that indicated that > the concept of a President that was not eligible to be one in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee > Ahhh, but the 12th amendment changed the rules. Now, each elector casts two > ballots, but instead of both ballots being for president, one is for > president and hte other is for vice president. I'm guessing that McCain > didn't receive the most vice president ballots in his favor. It would have > been quite amusing if Palin had though. No, it would have been quite sad. >> Ahhh, but the 12th amendment changed the rules. Now, each elector >> casts two ballots, but instead of both ballots being for president, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No, it would have been quite sad. Why? We'd have someone who many people would feel was unfit to be vice president (or president in case something happened), or we'd have Palin who many people feel is unfit to be vice president (or president in case something happened). Really, the only difference I see is that the something that might happen may have been caused by the vp if Palin had been elected instead of Biden. Oh, and the vice president probably wouldn't be working very closely with the president to get his agenda passed. >>> I'm guessing that McCain didn't receive the most vice president ballots >>> in his favor. It would have been quite amusing if Palin had though. Wow. Had that happened, if it is even possible for it to have happened, a great deal would be very different. At the very least, Obama would have to increase his security many times. I suspect that one of the strongest reasons why some of the true nutcases in this country aren't already planning their attacks on him is that the two people in line behind him are both worse than he is. I suspect that Sarah would, in fact, do the job she was elected to do, and would support, rather than fight his programs, at least in public. Their strategy sessions, however, might be very interesting. > >>> I'm guessing that McCain didn't receive the most vice president ballots > >>> in his favor. It would have been quite amusing if Palin had though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > planning their attacks on him is that the two people in line behind him are > both worse than he is. So you're suggesting that true nutcases prefer Palin? I'm astonished you would admit that, but I wholeheartedly agree! > So you're suggesting that true nutcases prefer Palin? I'm astonished > you would admit that, but I wholeheartedly agree! Well, all the true leftwing nutcases obviously prefered Bama-Boy and apparently, there are more of them than in all the people on the right... Must be some good sh.t they put in that Kool-Aid... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Well, all the true leftwing nutcases obviously prefered Bama-Boy and > apparently, there are more of them than in all the people on the right... > Must be some good sh.t they put in that Kool-Aid... And that gasbag Biden... that Obama had to muzzle. http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/199370-sarah_palin_s_knee_high_12_inch_heels_blac k_shiny_leather_boots.jpg http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/attachments/political-humor-satire/22749d12205 98617-liberal-hotties-vs-conservative-hotties-demrepub_women.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA Extremely good evidence supporting the hypothesis that smoking pot kills brain cells... Of course, we would have to prove that they had previously *had* brain cells before they smoked pot so that a true cause and effect relationship could be induced... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA I have to tell you, I'm as green as most, but if I had been there and that lady had started screaming and crying over one dead tree, I would have slowly and quietly backed away. People with guns in the woods don't worry me much. These people do. Lee >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA > > I have to tell you, I'm as green as most, but if I had been there and that > lady had started screaming and crying over one dead tree, I would have > slowly and quietly backed away. People with guns in the woods don't worry > me much. These people do. Absolute freaks. > > Well, all the true leftwing nutcases obviously prefered Bama-Boy and > > apparently, there are more of them than in all the people on the right... > > Must be some good sh.t they put in that Kool-Aid... > > And that gasbag Biden... that Obama had to muzzle. Like Palin wasn't muzzled? After her embarrassing introduction to the world, they handled her as carefully as a bomb squad would handle a dirty nuke found in the White House. >> So you're suggesting that true nutcases prefer Palin? I'm astonished >> you would admit that, but I wholeheartedly agree! No, what I'm suggesting is first, that only a nutcase would try something like the assasination of the President and second, that one of the few things likely to be holding that particular brand of nut case back, is the fact that they hate Joe and Nancy even worse than they hate Obama. In a sense, though, I suppose that means that those same nut cases would prefer Palin. That, of course, makes me wonder what is wrong with all the moonbat, out of touch liberals that even a nutcase makes better judgements than they do. Lee > >> So you're suggesting that true nutcases prefer Palin? I'm astonished > >> you would admit that, but I wholeheartedly agree! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > moonbat, out of touch liberals that even a nutcase makes better judgements > than they do. You can spin it that way, to be sure. But since only a small minority actually liked Palin for VP, and you share that minority view along with the nutcases crazy enough to assassinate a President, it's far more likely that your views, and not those of the liberal majority, are the ones to question. How's that killfile working out for you? > Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't you > think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the democrats > aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. This is just > paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part "Are ad hominem attacks all you can contribute?" -STUPID David Frank SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jun 18, 4:43 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't you > > think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the democrats > > aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. This is just > > paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part > > "Are ad hominem attacks all you can contribute?" -STUPID David Frank But Moron Face isn't an ad hominem if it's true! >> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't you >> think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the >> democrats aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. This >> is just paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part > > "Are ad hominem attacks all you can contribute?" -STUPID David Frank Are people in America still trying to claim that Obama is not an American and is a moslem. I thought Lee was being funny when he made these claims but maybe no. Hey popeye want to post something diving related? >>> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't you >>> think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hey popeye want to post something diving related? "Are ad hominem attacks all you can contribute?" -STUPID David Frank SignaturePopeye "Best thing for him, really. His therapy was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 >>> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic >>> don't you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hey popeye want to post something diving related? There are people in America who claim that Obama is not an American (or, at the very least, that he has not proven he is an American) and there are people who claim he is a moslem. My guess would be that sometimes those two groups overlap as well. I read somewhere that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya, but I wouldn't say that the cite was credible. > >>> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic > >>> don't you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I read somewhere that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya, but I > wouldn't say that the cite was credible. Exactly. I read somewhere that they proved that George W. Bush was really the son of an orangutang, but it's kind of late to care about that sort of thing anymore. On Jun 18, 9:23 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote: > dechucka wrote: > > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I read somewhere that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya, but I > wouldn't say that the cite was credible. Exactly. I read somewhere that they proved that George W. Bush was really the son of an orangutang, but it's kind of late to care about that sort of thing anymore. ============================================ lets get down to it. R boongs aloud to be President > On Jun 18, 9:23 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> dechucka wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > lets get down to it. R boongs aloud to be President The "rules" state that, to be president, you must be a natural born citizen... for whatever that means. I think that it will soon be interpreted that as long as you are a citizen and you weren't delivered through C-section, then you qualify. > I think that it will soon be interpreted that as long as you are a citizen > and you weren't delivered through C-section, then you qualify. Hey doc? I've been in labor for 60 hours, how about a C-section? Now mother, wait a minute before you go asking the doctor that. I may want our baby to be president. >On Jun 18, 9:23 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> dechucka wrote: >> > "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> >> > wrote in message >> >news:hdCdnXKDObSDTKfXnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@supernews.com... <snip> >Exactly. I read somewhere that they proved that George W. Bush was >really the son of an orangutang, but it's kind of late to care about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >lets get down to it. R boongs aloud to be President Translation: Are blacks / African-Americans allowed to be president? >>On Jun 18, 9:23 pm, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> dechucka wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Are blacks / African-Americans allowed to be president? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ section 1 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 So yes. Dennis "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in news:5f8d3$4a3c5155$cf62c293$3253@KNOLOGY.NET: > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ > section 1 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the > United States The confusion comes with the use of the term "natural born citizen" with respect to Bama-Boy... It's a term that was used in the Constitution, but was never really defined... Subsequent cases have changed the definition of "citizen", but not "natural born citizen"... There are those who say that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the US and of parents who are both citizens... Bama-Boy does not meet that criteria... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen The Founding Fathers had concerns about allowing the Commander in Chief of our Army to have foreign influences and as such, they wanted to ensure that only those who were citizens of citizens could be president... Laws that we have passed subsequently to redefine what it takes to become a "citizen" do not redefine what it takes to be a "natural born citizen"... Originally, I thought that since Bama-Boy's slut mother was a citizen then he would be and as such, could not understand the questions that were being brought up about his eligibility for the office... After reading a bit on this, I'm not so sure that he really was eligible though... From reading the above article, I can see why McCain would not bring up this issue though... It seems that his claim for being a "natural born citizen" might also come into question... Although his claim might be a bit better than Bama-Boy's, it's still a bit shakey... The Supremes have gone to great efforts to be able to hearing any case concerning this... Obviously, they just want to stick their judicial heads in the sand and hope it goes away... Must be nice to have a job like that... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in > news:5f8d3$4a3c5155$cf62c293$3253@KNOLOGY.NET: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen Perhaps, perhaps not. My point was addressing Mike;s question as to whether african-americans are allowed to be president. Clearly, if they meet the qualifications listed above, and can secure sufficent electors or, if the election goes to the house, sufficient representavies, to vote for them they can be president. > The Founding Fathers had concerns about allowing the Commander in Chief > of our Army to have foreign influences and as such, they wanted to ensure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reading a bit on this, I'm not so sure that he really was eligible > though... It'd be good to put the issue to rest. Supposedly the proof exists, but it being kept hidden away. Dennis On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:46:06 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in >> news:5f8d3$4a3c5155$cf62c293$3253@KNOLOGY.NET: >> >>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/ >>> section 1 <snip> >Perhaps, perhaps not. My point was addressing Mike;s question as to whether >african-americans are allowed to be president. Clearly, if they meet the >qualifications listed above, and can secure sufficent electors or, if the >election goes to the house, sufficient representavies, to vote for them they >can be president. No, it's not my question. I just did some translating since I didn't think many of you would've heard of the word "boong." > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:46:06 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > No, it's not my question. I just did some translating since I didn't > think many of you would've heard of the word "boong." Thanks for the clarification. Dennis On Jun 20, 6:46 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > It'd be good to put the issue to rest. Supposedly the proof exists, but it > being kept hidden away. It's not hidden away, it's at the Honolulu health department with all the other birth certificates of people born in Honolulu. What about the birth announcements, published in both of Honolulu's major newspapers contemponaneously with Obama's birth. Did the Obama campaign go back in time to forge the birth announcements or did Obama's poor student parents somehow know their baby was going to be president, so they convinced two major newspapers to conspired with them to falsify evidence of Obama's birth? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp Where is the proof that George W. Bush was not the son of a monkey? I demand DNA! > There are people in America who claim that Obama is not an American (or, > at the very least, that he has not proven he is an American) and there are > people who claim he is a moslem. My guess would be that sometimes those > two groups overlap as well. > I read somewhere that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya, but I > wouldn't say that the cite was credible. Until she passed away, sequestered, by the way, she was the only one that could have straightened the mess out easily. The inability to get the story straight from somebody that knew is certainly part of what makes so many suspect there may be truth to the allegations. Of course, he must be legitimate. No politician would ever lie just to gain access to trillions of dollars for his supporters. > >>> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic > >>> don't you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I read somewhere that his grandmother claims he was born in Kenya, but I > wouldn't say that the cite was credible. His Kenyan grandmother actually said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape of the interview with the grandmother. http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3 The above is the complete tape recording of the interview with Obama's Kenyan grandmother on Berg's site. The answer she gives is "America, Hawaii" right after she is asked: "Whereabouts was he born?" That is at a little more than five minutes into the tape. > Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't > you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the > democrats aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. > This is just paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part Never underestimate the stupidity of the leftists... Of course, one could probably argue that one should not underestimate the stupidity of *any* politician... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't > you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the > democrats aren't dumb enough to put forward an ineligible candidate. > This is just paranoid wish thinking trailer trash pov on your part Oh, you don't think that they would put forward someone that they believed that all the blacks would vote for and all the other weak minded non-blacks if they thought that he could win? They would figure that any eligibility questions would end up going through the courts and that could drag on for years and in the meantime, they would have control of the executive branch of the government... Wake up! Of course they would do it! Besides... McCain's eligibility is only slightly better than Bama-Boy's... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. >> Hey MORON FACE if your President wasn't a born and bred septic don't >> you think there would have been a constitutional challenge. Even the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would have control of the executive branch of the government... Wake > up! Of course they would do it! I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified is that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of all the things that Hillary is, coniving bitch has to be at the top of the list. My guess is that, if he weren't a "natural born" citizen, she probably would have outed him right after the democratic primaries, thus forcing the democratic party to go with their second-place option. > Besides... McCain's eligibility is only slightly better than > Bama-Boy's... > I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified is > that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of all > the things that Hillary is, coniving bitch has to be at the top of the > list. I'd put mindless liberal at the top. Signature-- Popeye "If one does as God does enough times, one will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector. www.finalprotectivefire.com http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762 On Jun 20, 11:11 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > > I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified is > > that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of all > > the things that Hillary is, coniving bitch has to be at the top of the > > list. > > I'd put mindless liberal at the top. "For her senior year she was redistricted to Maine South High School, where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in the top five percent of her class of 1965." "Following pressure from some fellow students, she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address. Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes." "In August 1974, she moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville" "Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades" "In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm. From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than her husband." Mindless, indeed. Now let's take the guy that Lee wants to be President instead: "McCain came into conflict with higher-ranking personnel, he did not always obey the rules, and that contributed to a low class rank (894 of 899)." [insubordinate, bottom of the class] "He did well in academic subjects that interested him, such as literature and history, but studied only enough to pass subjects he struggled with, such as mathematics." [lazy and stupid!] "John McCain's early military career began when he was commissioned an ensign and started two and a half years of training at Pensacola to become a naval aviator. While there, he earned a reputation as a partying man." [another partying man, just like fellow intellectual George W. Bush!] "On July 3, 1965, McCain married Carol Shepp, a model." "During this period in Florida, McCain had extramarital affairs, and the McCains' marriage began to falter, for which he later would accept blame." [an adulterer!] "In April 1979, McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship. They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce." [the only smart thing he ever did, marry a beer heiress!] I'll take the mindless liberal conniving bitch over the dumb insubordinate partying adulterer as someone responsible enough to run the country any day. > I'll take the mindless liberal conniving bitch over the dumb > insubordinate partying adulterer as someone responsible enough to run > the country any day. McCain is not a real Republican... He's more a Democrat than a Republican... That was part of the problem with the last election... The true conservatives didn't really have anyone running... Then again, one could easily argue that the last true conservative that we had was Reagan... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified > is that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > primaries, thus forcing the democratic party to go with their > second-place option. Unless she thought that she was going to end up as vice president (either through his choice or through his eventual death while in office)... It's not like there haven't been a few people associated with the Klintons that have conveniently died over the years... SignatureSee NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email. > I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified is > that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of all > the things that Hillary is, coniving bitch has to be at the top of the > list. My guess is that, if he weren't a "natural born" citizen, she > probably would have outed him right after the democratic primaries, thus > forcing the democratic party to go with their second-place option. Hillary's a conniving bitch, for sure, but even she's not perfect. Let's keep in mind, by the way, that there are some not so pretty things in Hillary's background as well. It may be a case of "leave it alone unless you think you'll survive the same treatment." >> I still contend that the absolute best proof that Obama is qualified >> is that if he weren't, Hillary would have found out and outed him. Of all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hillary's a conniving bitch, for sure, but even she's not perfect. I never claimed that she was perfect. This is not something she would have missed. > Let's keep in mind, by the way, that there are some not so pretty > things in Hillary's background as well. It may be a case of "leave > it alone unless you think you'll survive the same treatment." Many of which have been revealed at some point and don't seem to have hampered her career that much. > This is not something she would have missed. She missed her husband having (non) sex with the hired help. >> Let's keep in mind, by the way, that there are some not so pretty >> things in Hillary's background as well. It may be a case of "leave >> it alone unless you think you'll survive the same treatment." > > Many of which have been revealed at some point and don't seem to have > hampered her career that much. Neither did Bill Clinton's felony. >> This is not something she would have missed. > > She missed her husband having (non) sex with the hired help. You misspelled ignored. >>> Let's keep in mind, by the way, that there are some not so pretty >>> things in Hillary's background as well. It may be a case of "leave [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Neither did Bill Clinton's felony. My point exactly. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/dai ly_presidential_tracking_poll |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.