Enough's enough: Obama has conceded ineligibility [by default]

[libertarian4321]

You really think an open, outspoken 9/11 truther would/could win a statewide or national election for anything mildly important? Really?

Debra Medina completely flamed out when there was just a tiny little whiff of trutherism there after the Beck interview.

Don't remind me.

I almost drove my truck off the road when Medina fucked that question up.

If you want to alienate the electorate, just come out as a truther. Hell, you don't even have to come out as a truther, just be mealy mouthed about it like Medina was.

Even today, Ron Paul is still smeared with the "truther" label, even though he has never signed onto the "truth" (as the truthers see it).

I Some of the truthers worked hard to campaign for Ron Paul- I personally know a bunch who busted their butts waving signs, handing out literature, going to rallies, etc. Some of them were pretty good about toning down their "truth" rhetoric at RP events. However, the stigma attached to his campaign by having so many "truthers" attached to it far outweighed any help they gave him.

If Ron runs again in 2012, I really wish the truthers would go "help" Obama or Palin or anybody but Ron Paul. Let some other candidate's followers wear the tin foil hat this time!

 

[lynnf]

You should have properly attributed the copied text to the article, which you failed to do. You should have learned that as a college freshman.

If you must be lazy, at the very least you should throw quotes around the text to indicate that the words are not your own.

get real!


the convention is to have a link at the beginning followed by text from the article - that's all that's needed and is all that I'm doing. the link is your clue that the following text came from the link. any comments from the poster would be before the link. if you can't follow that, sorry.

lynn

 

[silus]

get real!


the convention is to have a link at the beginning followed by text from the article - that's all that's needed and is all that I'm doing. the link is your clue that the following text came from the link. any comments from the poster would be before the link. if you can't follow that, sorry.

lynn

Uh, thats not convention.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You're being overly dramatic, especially with someone you know nothing about. Secondly, please don't test peoples intelligence by pretending this is simply a constitutional issue.

I do not disagree with you in the grand scheme of Constitutional infringements the natural born clause is not a big one... BUT... if there are people who are going to take serious personal risk defending the Constitution we should respect that by not discrediting a legitimate Constitutional issue.

Also, If you are going to invoke the Champion of the Constitution let's remember he is the Champion of the whole Constitution... not just the parts of it you like. Once the Champion of the whole Constitution has been invoked utilizing the Champion of the Constitution to defend the Constitution is fair game.

I love Dr. Paul but to claim he has figured out the issues that must be presented to change the United States sort of defies the reality of his 4 decade career in politics.

Let's be honest, there are two reasons the libertarian message is getting play.
#1 The internet
#2 The crappy economy

If you want to talk about figuring things out you are preaching to the choir. I am not in the camp that believes politics is going to fix anything and have brought up the education genie in several threads. Obviously if you watch the CNN interview of Dr. Paul tonight he would agree with me. Change can only come philosophically from the people.

That means I am not in the crowd of political fanatics rushing to get behind every candidate that burps the word liberty. I would like to see something with a little more intelligent design behind it.... like some kind of liberty oriented tv. Specifically liberty oriented tv for kids and something that would compete with a Disney channel or Justin Biber YouTube video with 324 million views where the target audience is impressionable.

Seems like it would make more sense to get in the first truth business for kids than the trying to convert them as adults once they have been sold on some truth. Instead of raising millions of dollars for political elections to win one seat in government how about raising money for something that can market to millions of kids everyday?

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You do realize that the guy who said that was (in the movie) put away, right? And rightly so.

Military officers are NOT in the position to do as they damned well please- they follow orders- and ultimately they do the bidding of civilian authority.

That is what separates the USA from military dictatorships where military officers get to call the shots.

BTW, every cadet learns this long before pinning on his butter bars.

And do you realize the junior ranking Marines were also punished despite the good Colonel admitting to giving the order?

Why was that? Does it have anything to do with the fact the ultimate responsibility to discern what is or is not a lawful order lies with the individual?

 

[libertarian4321]

get real!


the convention is to have a link at the beginning followed by text from the article - that's all that's needed and is all that I'm doing. the link is your clue that the following text came from the link. any comments from the poster would be before the link. if you can't follow that, sorry.

lynn

Well, maybe that will fly in whatever high school/bar room you got your "education" from, but it really isn't correct.

You should enclose copied text in a text box or at least put quotes around it, mention the source, and include the link.

If you just throw out a link, then a bunch of text, the reader doesn't know if he text was copied from the link or was just your commentary on the link. Don't assume everyone is going to click the link.

So, you've been claiming Obama was as good as gone from office for almost 2 years now. When can we expect the birthers to impeach him and officially remove him from office?

Is this going to be one of those things like the embargo on Cuba? Run an ineffective campaign for 50 years, then when the old man gets sick or dies, declare victory?

Except in this case, the birthers will not get their chance until 2012 or 2016.

I can just see the birthers, on January 23, 2017, screaming "Orly was right!" and "google WTC building 7" and "remember Terry Lakin!" (as Lakin watches from his cell at Leavenworth)- finally claiming victory over Obama as he leaves office

 

[lynnf]

more getting real

Uh, thats not convention.

it isn't? see the link to the thread below. there are others, I'm just not going to waste more time finding them.

the pattern is: comment, link, excerpt (or full text)

makes a lotta sense, apparently too much sense for some people



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=260784&highlight=article

 

[WaltM]

Welcome to the real world and thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Yes. Lack of response to evidence = Other party wins by default.

not what I said.

Lack of response to evidence is not what birthers claim.

And you don't win by default, you win if you're in an advantaged position (as below examples)

If the IRS sends you a bill then lack of response = They win by default
If Chase sends you a credit card bill then lack of response = They win by default
If John Doe sends you a bill for mowing your yard whether you wanted him to or not then lack of response = John Doe wins by default.

That is the way it works.

 

[libertarian4321]

And do you realize the junior ranking Marines were also punished despite the good Colonel admitting to giving the order?

Why was that? Does it have anything to do with the fact the ultimate responsibility to discern what is or is not a lawful order lies with the individual?

Because they were guilty. They beat up and killed another Marine. That is exactly the kind of order that should not have been given (by the COL) or followed (by the enlisted Marines). It was wrong to give the order and wrong to follow it- anyone in the military should have known better.

Had the Marines refused to follow that order (as they should have done), they would have been exonerated.

You don't intentionally slaughter civilians, you don't kill your fellow soldiers, even if ordered to so so.

However, soldiers are NOT allowed to disobey an order anytime they get a wild hair up their ass. For example, bull shit like "I can't follow this lawful order from the officers appointed over me because I have political theories about the President's birthplace/eligibility/actions" won't fly and will get a soldier sent to Leavenworth.

This really ain't rocket science folks- it's pretty uch common sense. Soldiers may refuse to follow orders to improperly kill people- e.g. in contravention to the Geneva conventions, slaughtering civilians, or murdering their fellow soldiers. But soldier's don't get to play barracks lawyer and refuse a lawful order because it upsets their political sensibilities/constitutional theories.

I hope this is clear. If not, let me know which part confuses you and I'll explain in more depth.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

not what I said.

Lack of response to evidence is not what birthers claim.

And you don't win by default, you win if you're in an advantaged position (as below examples)

For purposes of the Constitutional natural born citizen requirement no one needs to go any further than point out the fact Obama's father was not a United States citizen or dual allegiance.

Considering Obama's parents were married at the time of birth the intent of the founders included the clause to prevent subjects loyal to the crown from ever becoming a President it's an open and shut case without even getting into anything else.

 

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=202929


For more than two years now, I have given Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.

That may be hard to fathom for some because of my admittedly relentless and tireless pursuit of the truth about his origins and his constitutional eligibility for office.

...

Today, the latest polls show 58 percent of Americans don't believe Obama's story and suspect he is not eligible to serve.

...

He has failed to answer the charge. He has failed to enter a plea. He has failed to show up for a hearing. Therefore, I no longer afford him the presumption of innocence.

...

Many in Washington, who are complicit in Obama's eligibility charade, and the establishment news media, who failed to provide the appropriate journalistic diligence and curiosity to hold Obama accountable, are still wishing, hoping and praying this issue and the public interest in it just fades away.

That isn't going to happen.

...

Let me see if I get this straight. Obama has not (to some birther's standards) not addressed the issue and provided evidence that he was born in Hawaii so therefore that must prove that he was not born there. On the other hand, birthers refuse (or are unable) to prove that he was born someplace else. By that same logic that must mean that birthers lose since they won't prove their side. I guess they both lose.

(Waiting now for "the burden of proof is on him" reply). It is up to the accuser to make their case in a court of law. The defendant does not have to prove anything. If you can show he was born somewhere else, that helps your case immensly. Arguing what if any difference there is between a "birth certificate" and a "certificate of live birth" doesn't get you very far with most people.

As for the format for posting, I am not a grammar school nanny but find it easier to decifer which is written by the poster and which is written by somebody or some article being quoted if the quoted part is offset by quotes- either the standard "" or with the colored box thing. Cuts down on confusion and the risk of being blamed/ credited for something which you yourself did not say. Not everybody will click on the link to try to see who said what. The link to the source can be before or after- I don't think that really matters. Just my opinion on the subject. OK- back to the topic.

 

[lynnf]

remember Blazing Saddles?

Well, maybe that will fly in whatever high school/bar room you got your "education" from, but it really isn't correct.

You should enclose copied text in a text box or at least put quotes around it, mention the source, and include the link.

If you just throw out a link, then a bunch of text, the reader doesn't know if he text was copied from the link or was just your commentary on the link. Don't assume everyone is going to click the link.

So, you've been claiming Obama was as good as gone from office for almost 2 years now. When can we expect the birthers to impeach him and officially remove him from office?

Is this going to be one of those things like the embargo on Cuba? Run an ineffective campaign for 50 years, then when the old man gets sick or dies, declare victory?

Except in this case, the birthers will not get their chance until 2012 or 2016.

I can just see the birthers, on January 23, 2017, screaming "Orly was right!" and "google WTC building 7" and "remember Terry Lakin!" (as Lakin watches from his cell at Leavenworth)- finally claiming victory over Obama as he leaves office

When can we expect the birthers to impeach him and officially remove him from office?

we don't need no stinkin impeachment! all we need is an honest judge that will consider the issue on its merits and grant discovery and not hide behind the so-called "standing" excuse, in order to settle the issue one way or the other. fat chance of that with the corrupt court system that we've inherited in the past years. we not only see a corrupt political system but the corruption spills over into the court system. what has been going on with the birth certificate exposes all that. well, maybe at least that's one good thing from all of it - the exposure.

and more and more people are waking up to all the happy horse-hockey that's been going on so maybe there is some hope for the future. it just won't be quick.

 

[silus]

I do not disagree with you in the grand scheme of Constitutional infringements the natural born clause is not a big one... BUT... if there are people who are going to take serious personal risk defending the Constitution we should respect that by not discrediting a legitimate Constitutional issue.

Also, If you are going to invoke the Champion of the Constitution let's remember he is the Champion of the whole Constitution... not just the parts of it you like. Once the Champion of the whole Constitution has been invoked utilizing the Champion of the Constitution to defend the Constitution is fair game.

I love Dr. Paul but to claim he has figured out the issues that must be presented to change the United States sort of defies the reality of his 4 decade career in politics.

Let's be honest, there are two reasons the libertarian message is getting play.
#1 The internet
#2 The crappy economy

If you want to talk about figuring things out you are preaching to the choir. I am not in the camp that believes politics is going to fix anything and have brought up the education genie in several threads. Obviously if you watch the CNN interview of Dr. Paul tonight he would agree with me. Change can only come philosophically from the people.

That means I am not in the crowd of political fanatics rushing to get behind every candidate that burps the word liberty. I would like to see something with a little more intelligent design behind it.... like some kind of liberty oriented tv. Specifically liberty oriented tv for kids and something that would compete with a Disney channel or Justin Biber YouTube video with 324 million views where the target audience is impressionable.

Seems like it would make more sense to get in the first truth business for kids than the trying to convert them as adults once they have been sold on some truth. Instead of raising millions of dollars for political elections to win one seat in government how about raising money for something that can market to millions of kids everyday?

By no means did I attempt to discredit or even challenge your concern. My issue is about how to most efficiently influence the country, and as supporters of Ron Paul I think we can best do that by very simply following his example. If not everywhere at least on this forum where the members are, to a small degree, representatives of Dr. Paul.

 

[Danke]

Welcome to the real world and thank you for pointing out the obvious.

Yes. Lack of response to evidence = Other party wins by default.

If the IRS sends you a bill then lack of response = They win by default
If Chase sends you a credit card bill then lack of response = They win by default
If John Doe sends you a bill for mowing your yard whether you wanted him to or not then lack of response = John Doe wins by default.

That is the way it works.

http://thematrixhasyou.org/affidavit-updated/attachment-zz-u.html

 

[idirtify]

Thanks. From that same link:

Sorry, but I don’t think the eligibility issue depends on any poll. I know lots of birthers try to use polls to bolster their position, but it’s really not relevant. Instead of arguing over how many people believe what, let’s look at what “the facts show” (as obama himself advised).

 

[erowe1]

He has failed to answer the charge. He has failed to enter a plea. He has failed to show up for a hearing. Therefore, I no longer afford him the presumption of innocence.

If the author thinks that it's Obama's responsibility to do any of those things in order not to be found guilty of fraudulently claiming to have been born in Hawaii, then the author never did afford him a presumption of innocence to begin with.

If people think he was born in Kenya, let them prove it. The reason they keep trying to pass the buck to Obama is because they don't have that proof and they have given up thinking they'll ever have it. But presumption of innocence (which is the phrase the author of the article chose to use) means that they're the ones with the responsibility to prove him guilty, not him to prove himself innocent.

 

[Vessol]

58% of Americans don't think Obama is eligible for President......

Something like 36% of Americans think the govt. may have had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.....

Yet people on this forum will still have you believe that bringing up these issues is a bad idea. Go ahead, play into the media's hands, that is exactly what they want you to think.

My only question is.

What does focusing on these things solve?

If Obama is ineligable for Presidency? What does it matter? They'll just find another guy to fit in the seat.

If the government did have a hand in 9/11 it will just be pointed at a few figures and fallmen, they'll probably get in trouble and then it will be written off as "A needed action in a time of troubles" or w/e. Just like all the clear and undeniable evidence for the USS Liberty, Gulf of Tonkin, etc etc.

I don't question the reality of these questions, but I question their usefulness.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I thought only one of his parents were an American, and both parents need to be Americans for the true definition of Natural Born Citizen.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I thought only one of his parents were an American, and both parents need to be Americans for the true definition of Natural Born Citizen.

Neither need to be American if you are born on US soil. 14th amendment.

 

[libertarian4321]

When can we expect the birthers to impeach him and officially remove him from office?

we don't need no stinkin impeachment! all we need is an honest judge that will consider the issue on its merits and grant discovery and not hide behind the so-called "standing" excuse, in order to settle the issue one way or the other. fat chance of that with the corrupt court system that we've inherited in the past years. we not only see a corrupt political system but the corruption spills over into the court system. what has been going on with the birth certificate exposes all that. well, maybe at least that's one good thing from all of it - the exposure.

and more and more people are waking up to all the happy horse-hockey that's been going on so maybe there is some hope for the future. it just won't be quick.

Hmm, I seem to recall you ranting 2 years ago that Obama was as good as gone.

Now, you ensure me that all the ranting, lawsuits, and other craziness will ensure that Obama is gone by January, 2017?

Rather than wasting your time on this ineffective, pointless nonsense, why not focus on something important- like getting good people elected and fighting bad policies?