53-42
 

The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll results, in tomorrow's edition of USA
Today:

Obama 53%
McCain 42%


Similar results in the latest NY Times survey.


Looks like it's going to take more than calling Obama a socialist,
shouting out to Rev. Wright, and pinning one's hopes on Joe the
Non-Licensed Plumber.

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll results, in tomorrow's edition of USA
Today:

Obama 53%
McCain 42%


Similar results in the latest NY Times survey.


Looks like it's going to take more than calling Obama a socialist,
shouting out to Rev. Wright, and pinning one's hopes on Joe the
Non-Licensed Plumber.



I don't think that this guy is going to give up. If he's correct and the
proof comes to light after the election, we are in for some interesting
times.

Last I heard, the Obama crowd and the DNC cited "proof" as being a statement
by some bureaucrat in Hawaii. This guy isn't buying it and is still asking
questions. Also, still missing in action apparently are some of his
pertinent college records that would indicate nationality.

I don't know enough about this to form an opinion other than I think Obama
should provide certified documents and not rely upon "hearsay". It's not
prying into his past ... heck, even some regular job applications require
some of this basic information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Eisboch

53-42
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll results, in tomorrow's edition of USA
Today:

Obama 53%
McCain 42%


Similar results in the latest NY Times survey.


Looks like it's going to take more than calling Obama a socialist,
shouting out to Rev. Wright, and pinning one's hopes on Joe the
Non-Licensed Plumber.



I don't think that this guy is going to give up. If he's correct and the
proof comes to light after the election, we are in for some interesting
times.

Last I heard, the Obama crowd and the DNC cited "proof" as being a statement
by some bureaucrat in Hawaii. This guy isn't buying it and is still asking
questions. Also, still missing in action apparently are some of his
pertinent college records that would indicate nationality.

I don't know enough about this to form an opinion other than I think Obama
should provide certified documents and not rely upon "hearsay". It's not
prying into his past ... heck, even some regular job applications require
some of this basic information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Eisboch




I wouldn't pin my hopes on a right-wing crackpot.

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll results, in tomorrow's edition of USA
Today:

Obama 53%
McCain 42%


Similar results in the latest NY Times survey.


Looks like it's going to take more than calling Obama a socialist,
shouting out to Rev. Wright, and pinning one's hopes on Joe the
Non-Licensed Plumber.



I don't think that this guy is going to give up. If he's correct and the
proof comes to light after the election, we are in for some interesting
times.

Last I heard, the Obama crowd and the DNC cited "proof" as being a
statement by some bureaucrat in Hawaii. This guy isn't buying it and is
still asking questions. Also, still missing in action apparently are
some of his pertinent college records that would indicate nationality.

I don't know enough about this to form an opinion other than I think
Obama should provide certified documents and not rely upon "hearsay".
It's not prying into his past ... heck, even some regular job
applications require some of this basic information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Eisboch


I wouldn't pin my hopes on a right-wing crackpot.

I don't. Nor do I have any specific "hopes". I am just disgusted with all
the dishonesty.
However, the claims in the lawsuit may have some legs. He's not the only
one who is digging into the issue.
If there's any merit to the claims, the media will have a field day once
their romance with Obama is over.
There's nothing better for ratings than a good old constitutional crisis.

Eisboch

53-42
 

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:44:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I don't. Nor do I have any specific "hopes". I am just disgusted with
all the dishonesty.
However, the claims in the lawsuit may have some legs. He's not the
only one who is digging into the issue.
If there's any merit to the claims, the media will have a field day once
their romance with Obama is over.
There's nothing better for ratings than a good old constitutional
crisis.

Eisboch

If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago. Not
to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history. He sued
Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from Hawaii.

53-42
 

wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:44:39 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


I don't. Nor do I have any specific "hopes". I am just disgusted with
all the dishonesty.
However, the claims in the lawsuit may have some legs. He's not the
only one who is digging into the issue.
If there's any merit to the claims, the media will have a field day once
their romance with Obama is over.
There's nothing better for ratings than a good old constitutional
crisis.

Eisboch

If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago. Not
to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history. He sued
Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from Hawaii.

The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and medical
records?

53-42
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from Hawaii.

The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is, an
American citizen born in Hawaii.

53-42
 

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:48:57 -0500, WaIIy wrote:


The original or a copy of the original birth certificate has NOT been
produced.

A copy of the short form has been produced.


Read my sentence carefully.

I will give you my boat if you can produce a copy of the ORIGINAL,
long-form birth certificate.

Sorry, no can do. It's not a public document, but I can produce this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...R3dqgD945OLU00

And this:

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


BTW, if you read the dismissal, the reason is unbelievable.

"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens,
voters, or party members should police the ConstitutionÂ’s eligibility
requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring
standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not
have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to
bring in the Amended Complaint."

Pretty much the same reason a judge dismissed a similar suit regarding
John McCain's citizenship.

http://getdrunkandvote4mccain.com/ar...t-over-mccain-
citizenship

It's getting pretty silly, don't you think?

53-42
 

wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:48:57 -0500, WaIIy wrote:


The original or a copy of the original birth certificate has NOT been
produced.

A copy of the short form has been produced.


Read my sentence carefully.

I will give you my boat if you can produce a copy of the ORIGINAL,
long-form birth certificate.

Sorry, no can do. It's not a public document, but I can produce this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...R3dqgD945OLU00

And this:

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

That's the best explanation for the validity of the birth certificate I've
seen and seems plausible.

Now where's the education records?

53-42
 

On Nov 2, 8:41*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
The latest USA Today-Gallup Poll results, in tomorrow's edition of USA
Today:

Obama * 53%
McCain *42%

Similar results in the latest NY Times survey.

Looks like it's going to take more than calling Obama a socialist,
shouting out to Rev. Wright, and pinning one's hopes on Joe the
Non-Licensed Plumber.

I don't think that this guy is going to give up. *If he's correct and the
proof comes to light after the election, we are in for some interesting
times.

Last I heard, the Obama crowd and the DNC cited "proof" as being a statement
by some bureaucrat in Hawaii. *This guy isn't buying it and is still asking
questions. * Also, still missing in action apparently are some of his
pertinent college records that would indicate nationality.

I don't know enough about this to form an opinion other than I think Obama
should provide certified documents and not rely upon "hearsay". * It's not
prying into his past ... heck, even some regular job applications require
some of this basic information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Eisboch

I wouldn't pin my hopes on a right-wing crackpot.

I'm not.

53-42
 

53-42
 

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is,
an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you do
with his running mate?

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

53-42
 

"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.

Eisboch

53-42
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week
ago. Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful
history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"?
Only the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says
he is, an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you
do with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy
of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout
of the information stored in an electronic database.

53-42
 

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.

Eisboch



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.

I don't recall referring to you as a dipschitt.

53-42
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week
ago. Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful
history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"?
Only the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says
he is, an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu.
I can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama
hasn't let this information be released. In the best case it would
put all of this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the
charges that Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out.
What do you do with a guy who committed fraud to run for the
presidency? What do you do with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy
of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout
of the information stored in an electronic database.


I doubt Obama gives a schitt about what you want in his certificate
of live birth.

53-42
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week
ago. Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful
history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the
9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"?
Only the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says
he is, an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu.
I can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama
hasn't let this information be released. In the best case it would
put all of this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the
charges that Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out.
What do you do with a guy who committed fraud to run for the
presidency? What do you do with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true
copy of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a
printout of the information stored in an electronic database.


I doubt Obama gives a schitt about what you want in his certificate
of live birth.

The fact that a requirement to be President of the United States of
America shall be a natural born citizen of the United States.

Would it bother you if there were questions surrounding the birth of a
Republican?

53-42
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week
ago. Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful
history. He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the
9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"?
Only the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he
says he is, an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in
Honolulu. I can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and
up, Obama hasn't let this information be released. In the best case
it would put all of this talk to rest. But, if there is some
validity to the charges that Obama is hiding something then it is
going to come out. What do you do with a guy who committed fraud to
run for the presidency? What do you do with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true
copy of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a
printout of the information stored in an electronic database.


I doubt Obama gives a schitt about what you want in his
certificate of live birth.

The fact that a requirement to be President of the United States of
America shall be a natural born citizen of the United States.

Would it bother you if there were questions surrounding the birth of a
Republican?


Indeed, I could never figure out how George H.W. Bush could have a son
as bright as Jeb and one as dull as George W. Different parents?

53-42
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history.
He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is,
an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you do
with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy of
the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout of
the information stored in an electronic database.

So far this one has convinced me.

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

53-42
 

D.Duck wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history.
He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the 9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?
Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is,
an American citizen born in Hawaii.
It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you do
with his running mate?
Prove he wasn't born in Hawaii, dipschitt. And who really cares if the
right-wing dipschitts are "up in arms" over this, anyway?
Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy of
the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout of
the information stored in an electronic database.

So far this one has convinced me.

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




Again, I see no reason to supply this sort of information to those who
would not vote for Obama under any circumstances. Screw 'em.

53-42
 

"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

53-42
 

"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

53-42
 

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.

53-42
 

"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

53-42
 

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.

53-42
 

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.

53-42
 

53-42
 

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!

53-42
 

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. :)

53-42
 

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... :)

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:29:19 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


If you are talking about the Berg suit, it was dismissed a week ago.
Not to shoot the messenger, but Berg does have a colorful history.
He
sued Bush under RICO statutes, suggesting prior knowledge of the
9/11
attacks. By the by, Obama has produced a Birth Certificate from
Hawaii.
The birth certificate is questionable and what about education and
medical records?

Grasping at straws, or do you think he's some sort of "sleeper"? Only
the truly paranoid would think he is anything but what he says he is,
an American citizen born in Hawaii.

It can all be cleared up the registrar of vital records in Honolulu. I
can't figure out why, if everything is on the up and up, Obama hasn't
let this information be released. In the best case it would put all of
this talk to rest. But, if there is some validity to the charges that
Obama is hiding something then it is going to come out. What do you do
with a guy who committed fraud to run for the presidency? What do you
do with his running mate?

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

Obama can clear up the question all by himself by releasing a true copy
of the record stored at Hawaii's vital records division. Not a printout
of the information stored in an electronic database.


I doubt Obama gives a schitt about what you want in his certificate of
live birth.

He seems to give a crap about what most of us want. But he is a great
orator from the telepromter.

53-42
 

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:02:43 -0500, "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





Isn't it nice to be excluded from the dip**** right wingers?
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Narcissistic Hypocrite]

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

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.



You have to wonder? To me, it is perfectly clear.

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.

Some of us have serious questions in 2008 about the honesty and motives of
Barack Obama and his political machine.
Hopefully, our concerns will prove to be unwarranted.

Problem is, there is a lot more at stake here in 2008 than there was in
2000.

Eisboch
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.

53-42
 

Boater wrote:
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.

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

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.

If you feel that way there is a method to get the Constitution changed.
Let us know how you make out. Or, are you just passing gas orally again.

53-42
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


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

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.


I think the Annenberg folks are a non-partisan group and they seem convinced
that they have seen, touched and photographed a *certified* copy (NOT the
original) of Obama's birth record. a certified copy in this format is
accepted by the State Department for passport purposes.

We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined
and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets
all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S.
citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are
false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as
"supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in
the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

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


The following photos are linked on the above page:

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_7.jpg

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil...tificate_1.jpg

53-42
 

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.

There is no Constitutional requirement that the President have an IQ
above his shoe size.

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.

Three is a method to get the Constitution changed. Let us know how you
make out.

53-42
 

"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
om...


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

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law (and that's all that matters
here) the document referenced in Duck's post satisfies the requirement of
a challenge to his natural born status.

It's too bad my wife and I had to fight tooth and nail to get "proof" that
our oldest son was a citizen of the USA, even though born overseas while I
was serving active duty in the military. Requests for help to resolve this
issue to our local, "veteran sensitive" United States Senator John Kerry
went totally unanswered.

BTW .... he may be facing a serious challenge to his 24 year "career" in the
Senate on Tuesday.
I hope like hell the voters give him the bum's rush out the door.

Eisboch

53-42
 

BAR wrote:

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

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of
the US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied
requirement that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?

53-42
 

Eisboch wrote:
"WaIIy" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 08:10:23 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"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

are you guys dense?

Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his
birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a
natural-born citizen.

That is NOT a copy of the original.

It doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law (and that's all that matters
here) the document referenced in Duck's post satisfies the requirement of
a challenge to his natural born status.

It's too bad my wife and I had to fight tooth and nail to get "proof" that
our oldest son was a citizen of the USA, even though born overseas while I
was serving active duty in the military. Requests for help to resolve this
issue to our local, "veteran sensitive" United States Senator John Kerry
went totally unanswered.

BTW .... he may be facing a serious challenge to his 24 year "career" in the
Senate on Tuesday.
I hope like hell the voters give him the bum's rush out the door.

Eisboch




Kerry has a 30-point lead in the average polls on that race. Is that a
serious challenge?

53-42
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:

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

There is a Constitutional requirement to be a natural born citizen of the
US of A to be the President. Therefore there is an implied requirement
that you provide proof that you meet the requirement.

There is, eh? Got cites?



Common sense.

It's an old concept that has been falling out of favor.

Eisboch