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.
You may be right, but I still think that the proper vetting of candidates must be addressed so we do not have this problem again. The SCOTUS needs to clearly define Natural born and someone needs to check and double check to see that they are in fact eligible.
I understand your feelings on the matter and I would appreciate your finding the tolerance for those who differ in opinion from you and not call names. I am not a RW nut, I am a liberal who strongly believes in the strict interpretation of constitution.
I think to many people have forgot why and how we were able to have this most precious document. many people have died defending it and I don't want people to forget that, or what the document means to the very life of this great nation.
Why was the Left able to dig up the dirt on Palin in 72 hours and the Right still can't get anything to stick on Obama? Maybe there is none on one and the other one needed a shower before being announced.
Amazing there are a large number of frivolous lawsuits against Obama already.
They're trying to "Clinton" him already.
Not all are against Obama, in fact most are against the Secratary of States in several States in effort to make them prove that they vetted Obama when he registered to become a candidate, and to compel them (the SOS's) to produce the documentation they used in that process. If there is no vetting process of candidates, I would think that anyone could see the potential problem that may arise.
Do a google search using these key words, "who vetted Obama" and see if any of you can find out if in fact he was?
You may be right, but I still think that the proper vetting of candidates must be addressed so we do not have this problem again. The SCOTUS needs to clearly define Natural born and someone needs to check and double check to see that they are in fact eligible.
I understand your feelings on the matter and I would appreciate your finding the tolerance for those who differ in opinion from you and not call names. I am not a RW nut, I am a liberal who strongly believes in the strict interpretation of constitution.
I think to many people have forgot why and how we were able to have this most precious document. many people have died defending it and I don't want people to forget that, or what the document means to the very life of this great nation.
Why was the Left able to dig up the dirt on Palin in 72 hours and the Right still can't get anything to stick on Obama? Maybe there is none on one and the other one needed a shower before being announced.
That question is for another thread, answering it would put this thread into an entirely different direction.
Not all are against Obama, in fact most are against the Secratary of States in several States in effort to make them prove that they vetted Obama when he registered to become a candidate, and to compel them (the SOS's) to produce the documentation they used in that process. If there is no vetting process of candidates, I would think that anyone could see the potential problem that may arise.
Do a google search using these key words, "who vetted Obama" and see if any of you can find out if in fact he was?
The entire election process is a vetting. Always has been, always will be. The parties, Republican, Democrat, Green, or Liberal, are not government entities. They are PRIVATE organizations serving a public function. We don't need to form a government department whose job it would be to gather documentation. Not just because a very small group of people, for reasons known only to them, cannot accept that Obama is qualified, and who persist in their actions to disprove it.
The entire election process is a vetting. Always has been, always will be. The parties, Republican, Democrat, Green, or Liberal, are not government entities. They are PRIVATE organizations serving a public function. We don't need to form a government department whose job it would be to gather documentation. Not just because a very small group of people, for reasons known only to them, cannot accept that Obama is qualified, and who persist in their actions to disprove it.
Did you do the google search? I just read an article where it was actually Hillary who started trumpeting the word vetting by saying that she had been vetted and implying that Obama had not. I do not believe that Hillary would have said that if she felt that Obama had been fully vetted.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With Barack Obama nipping at her heels in Iowa, Hillary Clinton went on the state's public television Dec. 14 to say: "I've been vetted. ... There are no surprises." LINK
Also, what you are saying is that it is up to the parties to vet their candidate. Lets consider that, if the party does not do their job (because they want their man in), and the SCOTUS cannot here a suit on vetting because of standing, then how are we the people being assured that a candidate is in fact eligible. Would you trust the RNC to do what is right, would any liberal?
Did you do the google search? I just read an article where it was actually Hillary who started trumpeting the word vetting by saying that she had been vetted and implying that Obama had not. I do not believe that Hillary would have said that if she felt that Obama had been fully vetted.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With Barack Obama nipping at her heels in Iowa, Hillary Clinton went on the state's public television Dec. 14 to say: "I've been vetted. ... There are no surprises." LINK
Also, what you are saying is that it is up to the parties to vet their candidate. Lets consider that, if the party does not do their job (because they want their man in), and the SCOTUS cannot here a suit on vetting because of standing, then how are we the people being assured that a candidate is in fact eligible. Would you trust the RNC to do what is right, would any liberal?
She had been vetted, by being in the public spotlight for years. The election process is the vetting process. Your premise, "the party does not do their job because they want their man in" is misleading. The election process is significantly devoted to determining who to nominate. Hillary started the campaign with complete confidence that she was "their man". But because the whole process is a vetting process, determining who is qualified and best suited to the office, Hillary isn't in the White House today. Would I trust the RNC of the DNC or any of the parties? I don't have to. I live in the United States where the party is just the first hurdle, and the public and press provide all the additional vetting we need. The overwhelming majority of people think Obama is qualified. There is only a small group of people still pursuing this natural-born citizen conspiracy theory, and there's a good reason for that. Because the conspiracy doesn't make sense. It's not logical.
It's clear that some of you only feel good and noble when you are disparaging other people with different views from you.
Aldous Huxley said, "There is nothing noble about being superior to some other man. The true nobility is in being superior to your previous self."
It's clear that some will never be satisfied with the results of the current election. That is fine, we don't require unanimous consent to elect a president. Obsessing about triviality isn't a substitute for winning the election.
The fact that you don't believe President Obama is a "natural born citizen" is fine. The fact that you want to tie up the valuable time of our government dealing with your obsession is not fine. One of the definitions of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over, each time expecting different results from the past. These cases are frivolous and the courts should sanction the next lawyer who files one.
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.
