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.
The point is to show that MSM is ignoring this issue.
Ignoring this issues is what RESPONSIBLE journalist do. It isn't the job of journalist report every fracking crack pot with some crackpot idea, or theory. If that were the case, based upon my experience, you would need a single subject 10 hour broadcast or a paper as large as a Michener novel. What is the job of journalist is to separate the wheat from the chaff and and report on the wheat while tossing the chaff in the round file. Birtherism, to be polite is nothing but chaff.
No, I'm not trolling.
This is only about Obama's eligibility in general.
It is specifically about a judge disenfranchising a citizen of their legal rights in regards to questioning Obama's eligibility.
Did you read the article?
There is no questions of his eligibility so no reason for anything to play out in a courtroom to satisfy you weird facination with it. That's all.
If there is nothing to hide, why not let let the issue of Obama's eligibility to hold office be aired out in court so it is put to rest once and for all for everybody?
Especially when there is a legal precedence for this to occur and to deny judicial process is a violation of this citizen's rights.
- this is ridiculous,
- such-and-such has been debunked,
- people who doubt his eligibility are stupid birthers
While effective in stifling conversation and intimidating many from pursuing their concerns,the above statements are not legal arguments.
Personally I have concerns because of the lack of the president to be forthcoming in response to questions about his eligibility, comments by himself alluding to foreign origin, comments written by himself in his self-avowed 'history' as being foreign born, credible forgery challenges to documents he did release and ambiguity concerning the legal definition of a Natural Born Citizen.
I believe this man is hiding something.
I wouldn't release it if I was him either. "Prove your innocence" is something I'm against.
It's always about policy.
There is no questions of his eligibility so no reason for anything to play out in a courtroom to satisfy you weird facination with it. That's all.
It's more then a weird fascination, it has turned into an erotic fetish. I can see the face of a birther now, frothing in excitement as he pulls up a scandalous image of a fairy tale birth certificate.
Was Bush's eligibility to hold office aired out in court? Was Clinton's? Was Papa Bush's? Was Reagan's? What were they hiding?
I know, how do we know Bush wasn't born in Mexico with his Mexican mother and then smuggled into Texas with doctored birth certificates....I know it sounds crazy, but it could of happened just like Obama was born in Kenya.
I find it an insulting and derogatory term and believe that is the way it is commonly used.
Well there is a simple way to fix this, try to accept the president was actually born in the country and drop the nonsense and we will stop using the term "birther."
Location: Currently I physically reside on the 3rd planet from the sun
2,220 posts, read 1,877,888 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Only in the feeble cranium of BIRTHERS!
On January 4th 2013 for the second time, the Congress of the United States, meeting in joint session certified the election of Barak Hussein Obama as the President of the United States as per the Constitution. If there was a issue regarding to his birth status, this was the venue where is should have been raised. It wasn't. As a result, no federal court would ever entertain the idea of intervening in the clear and unambiguous authority of the Congress and its role in the certification of the vote taken by the Electoral College, the only other venue where a challenge to the election is properly entertained.
The Fat Lady has sung, taken off her make up, changed her cloths, travel by limousine to the port, boarded the ship and has set sail for destinations unknown.
The good ship Birther set sail four years ago and sank after leaving the harbor.
So... you can't tell the difference between SCOTUS and the Georgia State Supreme Court? Pathetic.
Oh and by the way... you birthers already lost this appeal. The article you linked to was from 6 months ago.
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.
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.
