"Boater" wrote in message
...



I don't know of one reason why the Obama campaign should expend energy to
satisfy the curiosity of those who would not vote for him under any
circumstances. If some rightie has *proof* Obama was not born in Hawaii,
let him come forward with it. Proof, mind you, not speculation.


Isn't that cavalier attitude representative of the complaints many have of
GWB?

The guy is soliciting votes to be elected POTUS. To request documentation
proving his Constitutional eligibility to hold that office isn't asking much
and should be done as a matter of course in a basic background check. Obama
did not respond, causing some legitimate questions. Even his family members
have offered conflicting accounts of his place of birth. Add to that his
refusal to release college records and transcripts further begs questions.

It is my understanding that the "birth certificate" electronically posted on
the Obama website is suspect by many experts. Why not produce and submit a
certified original or copy to a judge?

Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court system to
dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents. That's scary to me. The
liberal media has put this issue in a filing cabinet, preferring to focus
more on proving that Sarah Palin can't see Russia from her house.

I just want some honesty. At least McCain has released all requested
documents, warts and all.


Again, to me, it's the sum of the details about Obama that leaves me
questioning who the heck he really is.

Eisboch

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


So far this one has convinced me.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...n_the_usa.html



Yup. It could have been so simple.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

I don't know of one reason why the Obama campaign should expend energy to
satisfy the curiosity of those who would not vote for him under any
circumstances. If some rightie has *proof* Obama was not born in Hawaii,
let him come forward with it. Proof, mind you, not speculation.


Isn't that cavalier attitude representative of the complaints many have of
GWB?

The guy is soliciting votes to be elected POTUS. To request documentation
proving his Constitutional eligibility to hold that office isn't asking much
and should be done as a matter of course in a basic background check. Obama
did not respond, causing some legitimate questions. Even his family members
have offered conflicting accounts of his place of birth. Add to that his
refusal to release college records and transcripts further begs questions.

It is my understanding that the "birth certificate" electronically posted on
the Obama website is suspect by many experts. Why not produce and submit a
certified original or copy to a judge?

Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court system to
dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents. That's scary to me. The
liberal media has put this issue in a filing cabinet, preferring to focus
more on proving that Sarah Palin can't see Russia from her house.

I just want some honesty. At least McCain has released all requested
documents, warts and all.


Again, to me, it's the sum of the details about Obama that leaves me
questioning who the heck he really is.

Eisboch






Once again, unless it is legally required, I see no reason to satisfy
the curiosity of those who will not be voting for Obama, no matter what.

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

Beyond this discussion, the "born in the USA" requirement is a stupid
one, anyway. Any citizen, born here or naturalized, should be allowed to
seek this nation's highest elected offices. A lot of voters at one time
wanted to see "the Arnold" run for the nomination but, of course, he
could not because of an "accident" of birth. No one questions his
loyalty and devotion to this country. I wouldn't have voted for the guy,
but I sure would have supported measures to make it possible for him to
run.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.


But, agree or not, the Constitution requires one to be a naturally born
citizen.
If a question of eligibility arises due to conflicting family recollections
that are made public, how else does one satisfy the law?

The Duck provided a link that offers convincing proof. Why did Obama make
this all so difficult and controversial?
Also, as one of his potential employers (heh), I'd really like to review
his college transcripts. Any problem with that?

I know if I refused if asked, I wouldn't get the job.


Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.


But, agree or not, the Constitution requires one to be a naturally born
citizen.
If a question of eligibility arises due to conflicting family recollections
that are made public, how else does one satisfy the law?

The Duck provided a link that offers convincing proof. Why did Obama make
this all so difficult and controversial?
Also, as one of his potential employers (heh), I'd really like to review
his college transcripts. Any problem with that?

I know if I refused if asked, I wouldn't get the job.


Eisboch




Apparently, the framers of the Constitution provided no mechanism for
office seekers to prove their country of birth. I wonder why.

I had and have serious questions in 2000 about the intellectual
capabilities of George W. Bush. My doubts about him have proved to be valid.

I had a test I thought should be applied to any potential nominee for
President. I thought he or she should have to read aloud a full page
chosen at random from a novel by Melville or even by Dickens. If Bush
had had to do that, he would have lost to Gore and this country wouldn't
be sliding to hell in a handbasket right now.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:02:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court system
to dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents.

That seems to be the pattern. 3 or 4 suits against Obama's "natural born
Citizen" status, and a couple against McCain's status, all have been
dismissed. It's also happened over the years. Goldwater being a recent
example, all because of that wonderfully vaguely worded document, the
Constitution.

The courts have seemed to take a hands off approach when deciding a
candidate's qualifications. While it may seem a little untidy, I think
the courts are correct. Do we really want a judge to decide who is
allowed to run, or worse, the previous administration? That could be a
large can of worms.

It's my understanding, "a natural born Citizen" was put into the
Constitution to avoid the chance of a foreign puppet. Neither Obama,
McCain, Goldwater, or even Chester Arthur, who may actually have been
born in Canada, fit the role of a foreign puppet. Personally, I accept
the courts hands off approach.

wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:02:43 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Instead of coming clean, Obama, via the DNC, has used the court system
to dismiss a lawsuit demanding these documents.

That seems to be the pattern. 3 or 4 suits against Obama's "natural born
Citizen" status, and a couple against McCain's status, all have been
dismissed. It's also happened over the years. Goldwater being a recent
example, all because of that wonderfully vaguely worded document, the
Constitution.

The courts have seemed to take a hands off approach when deciding a
candidate's qualifications. While it may seem a little untidy, I think
the courts are correct. Do we really want a judge to decide who is
allowed to run, or worse, the previous administration? That could be a
large can of worms.

It's my understanding, "a natural born Citizen" was put into the
Constitution to avoid the chance of a foreign puppet. Neither Obama,
McCain, Goldwater, or even Chester Arthur, who may actually have been
born in Canada, fit the role of a foreign puppet. Personally, I accept
the courts hands off approach.


I don't think "the Arnold" would, either, though I wouldn't vote for
him. He's as much an American as anyone born here.

On Nov 3, 8:41*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
There is no Constitutional requirement to provide the documentation you
want.

But, agree or not, the Constitution requires one to be a naturally born
citizen.
If a question of eligibility arises due to conflicting family recollections
that are made public, how else does one satisfy the law?

The Duck provided a link that offers convincing proof. *Why did Obama make
this all so difficult and controversial?
Also, as one of his potential employers (heh), *I'd really like to review
his college transcripts. *Any problem with that?

I know if I refused if asked, I wouldn't get the job.

Eisboch

Apparently, the framers of the Constitution provided no mechanism for
office seekers to prove their country of birth. I wonder why.

I had and have serious questions in 2000 about the intellectual
capabilities of George W. Bush. My doubts about him have proved to be valid.

I had a test I thought should be applied to any potential nominee for
President. I thought he or she should have to read aloud a full page
chosen at random from a novel by Melville or even by Dickens. If Bush
had had to do that, he would have lost to Gore and this country wouldn't
be sliding to hell in a handbasket right now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, being able to read aloud without mistakes would certainly make
someone mentally fit and competent to run the country and make
decisions that would affect the whole world. No wonder you were a
liberal arts major at a second rate school. You're an idiot!

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:13:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...


Prove he wasn't born in Hawaii, dipschitt. And who really cares if the
right-wing dipschitts are "up in arms" over this, anyway?

Sad that anyone who has questions or reservations about *your* candidate is
automatically a dipschitt.

You know, Obama talks and speaks like a theoretical mathematician.

To which you say - what?

Here's what I mean. Math geeks speak and think in a top down fashion.
You build a construct to fit a particular set of circumstances. There
is no foundation for this construct - just a hunch. or a guess. Once
the central idea is established, then there is a build to a proof.
However, you can't prove a construct without returning to the
foundation because if the foundation isn't firm, the proof won't pan
out.

Think of it this way - you build a ten story building without a
basement or basement walls and support beams to hold it up. You can't
put the penthouse on top of the building without first building the
foundation. So you walk back down and build the foundation, then
return to the 11th floor to see if the building still stands.

That doesn't mean that the central idea or theory isn't valid. It's
just a different way of looking at the problem and establishing the
conditions for success. The problem is that if the penthouse doesn't
topple the building you succeed. But if the penthouse tips the
building over, you have a huge problem.

That's the way Obama thinks - he perceives a problem exactly backwards
to the way social problems should be thought about.

That ain't good. :)

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:13:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Prove he wasn't born in Hawaii, dipschitt. And who really cares if the
right-wing dipschitts are "up in arms" over this, anyway?
Sad that anyone who has questions or reservations about *your* candidate is
automatically a dipschitt.

You know, Obama talks and speaks like a theoretical mathematician.

To which you say - what?

Here's what I mean. Math geeks speak and think in a top down fashion.
You build a construct to fit a particular set of circumstances. There
is no foundation for this construct - just a hunch. or a guess. Once
the central idea is established, then there is a build to a proof.
However, you can't prove a construct without returning to the
foundation because if the foundation isn't firm, the proof won't pan
out.

Think of it this way - you build a ten story building without a
basement or basement walls and support beams to hold it up. You can't
put the penthouse on top of the building without first building the
foundation. So you walk back down and build the foundation, then
return to the 11th floor to see if the building still stands.

That doesn't mean that the central idea or theory isn't valid. It's
just a different way of looking at the problem and establishing the
conditions for success. The problem is that if the penthouse doesn't
topple the building you succeed. But if the penthouse tips the
building over, you have a huge problem.

That's the way Obama thinks - he perceives a problem exactly backwards
to the way social problems should be thought about.

That ain't good. :)


Smoke...I see and smell smoke being blown my way... :)