You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Birthers Hail Judgeâs Decision That Could âDeposeâ Obama
- Thread starter Mvector
- Start date
Quote from stu:
First it was the birth certificate. When that birther bullcrap flopped you jumped straight over onto the natural born birther bullshit. You're a birther.
"constantly a full of shit troll. wrong about the law. " ..summing yourself up perfectly once again.
I am still waiting for a link to the hundreds of years of nbc law you said you had. You are the troll who made up b.s. about the law being in place. I had to tell you a dozen times the law has never been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your ignorance is documented on this thread multiple times.
Regarding the birth certificate. I rightly stated Obama never produced one (his staff may have leaked one on the internet) then in response to Trump saying the same thing... he did. That made me correct and you, AK and all your obama loon friends wrong.
Finally, can you explain this...
Why is it wrong to request that a candidate prove he meets the eligibility requirements before he gets on the ballot.
Any american that has problems with that idea is a commie obama loon.
Still waiting you say. Then you'll wait a long time. When you can eventually learn to read what I said about hundreds of years of law, you might stop making ridiculous requests for links and fruitlessly wasting your time as a birther .Quote from jem:
I am still waiting for a link to the hundreds of years of nbc law you said you had. You are the troll who made up b.s. about the law being in place. I had to tell you a dozen times the law has never been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Your ignorance is documented on this thread multiple times.
Regarding the birth certificate. I rightly stated Obama never produced one (his staff may have leaked one on the internet) then in response to Trump saying the same thing... he did. That made me correct and you, AK and all your obama loon friends wrong.
Finally, can you explain this...
Why is it wrong to request that a candidate prove he meets the eligibility requirements before he gets on the ballot.
Any american that has problems with that idea is a commie obama loon.
There are many words and phrases in Constitutional law which the U.S. Supreme Court has not defined. Because the Court has not defined the term natural born, does not mean they need to. But you're a birther, and as the birth certificate nonsense has died a death , birthers want words defined.
Words that if they were to mean anything else other than how Obama's antecedence complies with them, would require a description to be present, and a precept made in law which would be contrary to everything understood within the basis of all common law, and within the origins of the Constitution and findings of the Supreme Court thereafter.
It would also require an impossible legal definition, if it were not to leave just another game of word play for commie birther loons in the future.
People are already open to scrutiny for eligibility under the law. As a birther loon however you will just regurgitate any old controversy hoping it will sound as if there were no law or remedy against ineligible candidates.
- " It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other" :
James Madison, 1789 1st Congress . The Foundersâ Constitution Volume 2.
What is commie un-american loonery is the idea you are flapping about with, to bogusly demand the Constitution be unwarrantedly defined because your batty birther birth certificate idea ran out of steam.
here is a sample of your bullshit on the subject.
where was the law currently applied?
what is the law as it now stands..
you are so full of shit stu.. you are stupid.
Quote from stu:
Now you want the Supreme Court to just give their opinion, not a ruling to change law!?
So put it this way then.
You're asking that the Court tests the understanding of the law as it stands, so the application of it will change, by specifically defining the wording used in the Constitution to expressly describe whether anyone born on US soil by a US american mother is a Natural Born Citizen or not....
[/i].
where was the law currently applied?
what is the law as it now stands..
you are so full of shit stu.. you are stupid.
You seem to think that asking dumber and dumber questions with some insult thrown in there is some kind of an intelligent response.Quote from jem:
here is a sample of your bullshit on the subject.
where was the law currently applied?
what is the law as it now stands..
you are so full of shit stu.. you are stupid.
Birthers like any other conspiracy theorists will throw suggestions around which may on the surface seem to have some sort of cursory plausibility, but then just as with any conspiracy, quickly fall flat on their face as soon as they get queried. First it was all about a birth certificate, now its the meaning of natural born.
Where was the law currently applied? Well, where the f#k do you think the law was currently applied.
What is the law as it now stands? What the f#k do you think the law is as it now stands.
William Rawle. United States district attorney from 1791.
- "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
One or the other.
Review of Georgia case, partial:
"Thatâs for now. There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffsâ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didnât guide them through the process, and she didnât write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that weâve seen before. The second factor is that there will be a winner and there will be a loser, and this has to happen advance of the March 6 Georgia Primary. The birthers, specifically, will lose. Once that happens, they will crucify Judge Malihi and deny the validity of the process that they themselves selected. Itâs their nature."
Actually, this puts both sides together for a point of law, then the final paragraph above.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/the-georgia-birther-ballot-challenge/
c
"Thatâs for now. There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffsâ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didnât guide them through the process, and she didnât write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that weâve seen before. The second factor is that there will be a winner and there will be a loser, and this has to happen advance of the March 6 Georgia Primary. The birthers, specifically, will lose. Once that happens, they will crucify Judge Malihi and deny the validity of the process that they themselves selected. Itâs their nature."
Actually, this puts both sides together for a point of law, then the final paragraph above.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/the-georgia-birther-ballot-challenge/
c
Now that we've heard the point of view from the LEFT. Here are the fair and balanced facts.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KhFneWERAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KhFneWERAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Quote from cgroupman:
Review of Georgia case, partial:
"Thatâs for now. There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffsâ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didnât guide them through the process, and she didnât write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that weâve seen before. The second factor is that there will be a winner and there will be a loser, and this has to happen advance of the March 6 Georgia Primary. The birthers, specifically, will lose. Once that happens, they will crucify Judge Malihi and deny the validity of the process that they themselves selected. Itâs their nature."
Actually, this puts both sides together for a point of law, then the final paragraph above.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/the-georgia-birther-ballot-challenge/
c
Quote from stu:
You seem to think that asking dumber and dumber questions with some insult thrown in there is some kind of an intelligent response.
Birthers like any other conspiracy theorists will throw suggestions around which may on the surface seem to have some sort of cursory plausibility, but then just as with any conspiracy, quickly fall flat on their face as soon as they get queried. First it was all about a birth certificate, now its the meaning of natural born.
Where was the law currently applied? Well, where the f#k do you think the law was currently applied.
What is the law as it now stands? What the f#k do you think the law is as it now stands.
William Rawle. United States district attorney from 1791.Either learn how to follow an argument or just be a birther.
- "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
One or the other.
Stu... we have a system of jurisprudence in this county. If you think a statement by a district attorney is the law... you are even more ignorant than I thought.
Do you even know how law is formed.
Do you understand what law is?
How stupid are you?
Quote from pspr:
Now that we've heard the point of view from the LEFT. Here are the fair and balanced facts.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KhFneWERAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
OK, now that is funny I guess. Fox and fair and balanced. I will give you the 'other' side of course.
Actually, if you read the whole piece, the author made some good points, from YOUR side. I admitted the last paragraph was a one sided, but the article actually was pretty 'balanced' overall.
c
I sort of got hung up on some of the statements your author made early in his article. I don't hesitate to say the man is BIASED!Quote from cgroupman:
OK, now that is funny I guess. Fox and fair and balanced. I will give you the 'other' side of course.
Actually, if you read the whole piece, the author made some good points, from YOUR side. I admitted the last paragraph was a one sided, but the article actually was pretty 'balanced' overall.
c
"Iâve spent a lot of editorial energy on this site criticizing birthers and particularly their methods."
"I think Birther claims are the worst kind of nonsense. There are no legitimate grounds under which Barack Obama can be excluded from the presidential ballot,..."