• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

WOOOT BARRACK OBAMA

My apologies for misreading your post. Although I'm not sure it is considered by anyone to be extremist to have proof of a birth certificate to become president, atleast I didn't see anyone post that it was.
 
Michael823 said:
My apologies for misreading your post. Although I'm not sure it is considered by anyone to be extremist to have proof of a birth certificate to become president, atleast I didn't see anyone post that it was.
Click to expand...
Nobody here did personally it was a media quote about a proposed bill to require it. Read post #523.
 
tsst said:
You indeed misinterpreted. I questioned why it was considered "extremist" to require a birth certificate for proof when such proof is required for things far less important than leading the nation.
Click to expand...


It's extremist because presidential candidates didn't just fall out of the sky.


It's extremist because these people are NOT unknowns without a traceable history, social security, education, Drivers ID, financial etc...


It's extremist because
To date we have no known presidents that have been sneaky, foreign-born, impostors bent on the annihilation of the US of A. To wit: There is no precedence for it.


It's extremist because
quite SIMPLY:
The political vetting and aforementioned eligibility requirements would preclude the need for this.


It's extremist because
It's pretty clear now why this issue of proof is still around. Isn't there something else they could find to attempt to discredit the current presidency?
 
Aside from extremist, it's also really weird, seeing as how it has been seen and reviewed and posted online etc etc. It's just a rumor that won't die, lol. Nobody with the authority to ask for it is questioning it's validity.
 
I was unclear where the statement came from, I read the article and see how ridiculous that mans thinking was. I wasn't sure where the birth certificate discussion came into play, and thought it was obvious that birth records would be a requirement to run for president.
But it's BS to me to specifically make Obama prove his eligibility, and no coincidence that it's because he's the first African American president. But that's why the opposition lost, IMO. Rather than judge his policies, or talk about theirs, they found all of these little circus acts to try to throw him off his game. Well, it clearly didn't work.
 
tsst said:
Its been awhile since I looked at the constitution. 35 years old, natural born citizen, and like 15 years residency?! Eligibility requirements may already be there but that's not quite the same as proof of eligibility. My daughter met the eligibility requirements for a learning permit too but still had to provide proof.
Click to expand...

OK, now that she has provided proof for the "learner's permit", it's probably safe to assume that she won't need to provide the same (redundant) information as she progresses to getting the actual driver's license. Perhaps she'll need to provide additional information as she gets an operator's license, such as proof of insurance.

That said, here's a link for Article IV of the constitution of the State of Illinois, which has to do with The Legislative Branch of that state's government.

Illinois State Constitution said:
SECTION 1. LEGISLATURE - POWER AND STRUCTURE
The legislative power is vested in a General Assembly
consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
elected by the electors from 59 Legislative Districts and 118
Representative Districts.
(Source: Amendment adopted at general election November 4,
1980.)

SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION

(c) To be eligible to serve as a member of the General
Assembly, a person must be a United States citizen, at least
21 years old, and for the two years preceding his election or
appointment a resident of the district which he is to
represent. In the general election following a redistricting,
a candidate for the General Assembly may be elected from any
district which contains a part of the district in which he
resided at the time of the redistricting and reelected if a
resident of the new district he represents for 18 months
prior to reelection.
Click to expand...

Think of the qualifications for becoming a State Senator in Illinois as Obama's "Learner's Permit". He had to provide his "eligibility requirements" to run for that particular office.

As I'm sure he had to provide the requirements to run for the US Senate.

Wouldn't you think that, from the time Obama progressed from State Senator to US Senator to President, that somehow, somewhere, at some time, this information would have been scrutinized already?



Dale
 
I'd been scheduled to do an NPR call-in show about reptiles for over six months; Charlie Green and I do this every show every spring. I just got bumped for some swine flu doctor after rearranging my schedule and prepping for the last few weeks. I'm really ticked off at Obama right now.
 
ForkedTung said:
It's extremist because presidential candidates didn't just fall out of the sky.
Click to expand...
Some may have been skydiving before. lol

It's extremist because these people are NOT unknowns without a traceable history, social security, education, Drivers ID, financial etc...
Click to expand...
I'm sure they can track all of these things for Arnold S too but that does not make him eligible to be president. In what way is their place of birth "traceable"? birth certificate maybe? NOT sure what the point was here?!

It's extremist because
To date we have no known presidents that have been sneaky, foreign-born, impostors bent on the annihilation of the US of A. To wit: There is no precedence for it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, roflmao, no politician has ever been sneaky and no foreign government has ever tried to impose. Besides how does requesting a birth certificate imply we suspect our candidates are "bent on the annihilation of the US of A"?

It's extremist because
quite SIMPLY:
The political vetting and aforementioned eligibility requirements would preclude the need for this.
Click to expand...
Again "eligibility requirements" are not the same as proof of meeting those requirements.

It's extremist because
It's pretty clear now why this issue of proof is still around. Isn't there something else they could find to attempt to discredit the current presidency?
Click to expand...
Why do some keep trying to tie my question back to Obama? I could really give a crap if it's Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Arnold S, Robin Williams, Carrot Top, or my daughter. I don't see why reqesting a birth certificate as proof of meeting a requirement is such a big deal. And labeling it extremist that's just the left being extremist on the flip side.

Let me rephrase my question. If a requirement for (someone not named Obama) being a ditch digger is that you have to be a natural born citizen. Would it be extremist to ask him/her for their birth certificate as proof that they actually are or should we just assume they are because they have a social security card and drivers license and an education and own a shovel? No wait that won't work, I am sure Arnold S has a drivers license and a social security card and an education along with many of the 11 million illegal immigrants as well. None of which are eligible to be president.
 
jazzgeek said:
OK, now that she has provided proof for the "learner's permit", it's probably safe to assume that she won't need to provide the same (redundant) information as she progresses to getting the actual driver's license. Perhaps she'll need to provide additional information as she gets an operator's license, such as proof of insurance.

That said, here's a link for Article IV of the constitution of the State of Illinois, which has to do with The Legislative Branch of that state's government.



Think of the qualifications for becoming a State Senator in Illinois as Obama's "Learner's Permit". He had to provide his "eligibility requirements" to run for that particular office.
Click to expand...
How did he provide proof for Illinois? a birth certificate? It does not say in the state requirements what is needed for proof either. Is it written somewhere else what is acceptable proof for meeting the requirements? (I seriously don't know)

As I'm sure he had to provide the requirements to run for the US Senate.

Wouldn't you think that, from the time Obama progressed from State Senator to US Senator to President, that somehow, somewhere, at some time, this information would have been scrutinized already?



Dale
Click to expand...
The US Constitution does not include an "if you were a senator" clause to preclude him/her. I guess we can assume someone somewhere checked it. Though I still don't think it's too much to ask for proof for a position that holds not only 300+ million Americans but indeed the potential fate of the globe in the balance. If it really imposes that much on a candidate then maybe that is a candidate we can do without. (and no, before anyone assumes, I am not talking about Obama this is a generalization directed at any and all future candidates from any party)
 
Why do some keep trying to tie my question back to Obama?
Click to expand...
Have you looked at:
The title of this thread?
The fact that almost every post in this thread refers to Obama?
The posts where Obama and his birth certificate are specifically mentioned numerous times?

My quote from post #523 that you reference another member to in post #563

Such was the fallout when U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, introduced legislation last month that would require all presidential candidates to submit a birth certificate when qualifying to run. Posey said the intent was to prevent a repeat of what happened last year, when fringe critics of then-candidate Barack Obama questioned his citizenship.
Click to expand...

Again "eligibility requirements" are not the same as proof of meeting those requirements.
Click to expand...
Is this some kind of a semantics game?
don't you think that having "eligibility requirements" would necessarily include proof of meeting said requirements? The inference is there if you choose to ignore it so be it.

I guess if you wanted we could ask the president to submit to some DNA sampling to insure he/she is not a serial rapist as well? It is possible that he/ she may be, so why don't we do that as well?
I guess I would just choose to assume ( yes I know the connotations with this word) that somewhere along the way if there was a problem with any of this it would've surfaced by now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top