Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,963 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Really? Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't actually include that definition in the Constitution
Wow. They didn't include the definition of "assemble," either.

And yet, Congress still manages to "assemble" to legislate anyway. However can that be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:43 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,963 posts, read 44,771,250 times
Reputation: 13677
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Exactly. SCOTUS has been presented the opportunity to review Obama's eligibility 22 different times.

And 22 times they have told you to go pound sand.
...for lack of standing. One DARE not question elected leaders, huh?

SILENCE PEASANTS!!! SHUT UP AND TAKE IT!!! WE WILL RULE YOU!!! YOU WILL SUBMIT!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,069,526 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's all just gushing blurbs about Obama.
Not really, but even if they were, who cares? They still prove Root is liar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Where is the proof of any Columbia reunions he's attended, or was even invited to attend? Or any of the other Poli Sci Pre-Law majors who knew him at Columbia and had him in their classes?
Your cluelessness grows by leaps and bounds. Most college graduates never attend reunions. But the link I provided has five of his classmates, two of his professors, his entries from the College directory from both years of his attendance, and even (thanks to Breitbart) his name on the graduation program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:51 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,859,083 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Wow. They didn't include the definition of "assemble," either.

And yet, Congress still manages to "assemble" to legislate anyway. However can that be?
Hmmm...

I guess the Founding Fathers thought that people could figure out what assemble means without them spelling it out. And I guess they figured citizen by birth was fairly obvious as a definition for natural-born citizen. And it's worked for United States citizens for 223 years. Until a black man was elected. Then, all of a sudden, there are all these people trying to make up a third kind of citizen. Hmmmm.... However could that be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,069,526 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Wow. They didn't include the definition of "assemble," either.
No, they didn't. And smart people aren't confused by that either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,069,526 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
...for lack of standing.
Once again, you reveal a level of ignorance so deep as to be prodigious. SCOTUS almost never gives a reason for denying certiorari at all... let alone "for lack of standing."

And let's not forget, the very first case to reach SCOTUS (Donofrio v. Wells) lost in the lower courts on its merits. Standing was never even raised as an issue.

You really have to stop making up bull****.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 01:49 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 6,268,282 times
Reputation: 1837
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
We have proven the can't have had one.

But we also know that he traveled to Indonesia in 1967, so he also had to have an American one.
Keep in mind, during that time, children were included their parents passports. Rarely they got a passport of their own.

It wasn't until the 80's where individual passports were required for children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,069,526 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
Keep in mind, during that time, children were included their parents passports. Rarely they got a passport of their own.

It wasn't until the 80's where individual passports were required for children.
Keep in mind, however, that he returned to the United States at age 10 alone, and cannot have done so on a shared passport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 02:27 PM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,432,756 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Find out in the documentary "2016" which is opening in over 400 theaters nationwide.
that should be a fun night out at the movies, hope you enjoy yourself claud.

but be forewarned...... the film specifically states that “On August 4, 1961, Barack Obama II is born in the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu. His birth is recorded in two local newspapers.” also one of the "evil influences" in the film is a columbia professor which would contradict the OP link's suggestion that nobody knew him ( then again the OP link contradicts itself on that point. "i never heard of him....... but i know what name he was using." [ to paraphrase ]. )

Last edited by wrecking ball; 08-13-2012 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2012, 02:46 PM
 
26,562 posts, read 14,432,756 times
Reputation: 7421
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Born a Brit. Not legit.
what's your thoughts on mexican?

Mexican nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationality by birth
The constitution declares that Mexicans by birth (natural born Mexicans) are the following:[1]

- individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;

- individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory;*

- individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization; and

- individuals born in Mexican merchant or Navy ships or Mexican merchant or Army aircraft


* Hola Mitt!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top