OT: Birth Cert - For those that need proof read this......

Vader wrote:

ameriken wrote: IB5150, I personally know some liberals, and they are nothing like you describe nor are they marxist. They'd be in fact, quite insulted at your view of them. While they have a different viewpoint than I, they do not possess the qualities you described.

Do you personally know some liberals who act like this? How did you arrive at this sour viewpoint?

LOL!!! I don't if he knows any, but I sure do!

Maybe all of them don't believe that way, but Dr. Michael Savage's view... "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental ... 428&sr=8-1 can't be far off the mark.
More and more Democrats these days seem to be embracing the "liberal" moniker. Not long ago a lot of democrats really resented that reference. We're ALL gonna have to ramp down the rhetoric a bit.
That could start with "liberals" not going ballistic at the mere mention of the Tea Party, as though libs themselves aren't the loonie element of the democrat party.
just my two cents, so I guess libs can fire away at me now....

I know some libs who are like that as well. My point is to avoid putting all into the same basket. I sure as heck don't like it when some idiot right wingnut makes some obviously racist remark and then all conservatives are labled as racist. Works the same in reverse. Because of some libs, his remarks put all into the same basket.

I also know some conservatives who display some of the same qualities he is criticizing liberals of. While they do not have liberal views, they respond with the same behavior that they criticize liberals of having....with hatred, lies, and when presented with a really good argument, they would deflect away from the argument and make personal attacks. I was shocked to see conservatives act in that manner.

My point to IslandBoy is as you say, 'not all' are like that. The shit is flung from boths sides. So, I was just wondering where and how he developed this hateful view of all liberals and if it was through personal experience or if he is just believing what garbage spewed by Fox News or Limbaugh or other media conservatives who's goal is to make a buck by fanning the flames of right winged hatred for the left.

It seems to me the confusion comes in with the adjective, natural. Obama was born a citizen of the United States. Is there something unnatural about either his birth or his citizenship?

One of the meanings of "natural" is "begotten rather than adopted". As it is modifying "born", this seems to be the most likely sense. And immigrants who gain citizenship are said to be naturalized. Thus I think more philosophical concepts need not be considered, and a natural born citizen is a born citizen as distinguished from a naturalized citizen.

ameriken wrote: So, I was just wondering where and how he developed this hateful view of all liberals and if it was through personal experience or if he is just believing what garbage spewed by Fox News or Limbaugh or other media conservatives who's goal is to make a buck by fanning the flames of right winged hatred for the left.

Somehow I don't think this will at all surprise YOU, but I really like Rush Limbaugh, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Fox News. I certainly don't "HATE" liberals ( for that matter, I don't hate anybody!) because of my listening and viewing habits, as perhaps suggested by you.

So this begs the question, if you don't mind me asking, who do YOU rely on, and trust, on radio and TV?

Vader wrote:

ameriken wrote: So, I was just wondering where and how he developed this hateful view of all liberals and if it was through personal experience or if he is just believing what garbage spewed by Fox News or Limbaugh or other media conservatives who's goal is to make a buck by fanning the flames of right winged hatred for the left.

Somehow I don't think this will at all surprise YOU, but I really like Rush Limbaugh, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Fox News. I certainly don't "HATE" liberals ( for that matter, I don't hate anybody!) because of my listening and viewing habits, as perhaps suggested by you.

So this begs the question, if you don't mind me asking, who do YOU rely on, and trust, on radio and TV?

I used to listen/watch both Limbaugh and Fox. Fox when they were more 'fair and balanced', and I liked Hannity and Colmes because of the two views. Listening to the same crap on Limbaugh just got old. I get tired of listening to the same person tell the same story about how bad the other side is.

As for who I trust, it's KOA Radio, Denver, mostly in the mornings.

ameriken wrote: My point to IslandBoy is as you say, 'not all' are like that. The shit is flung from boths sides. So, I was just wondering where and how he developed this hateful view of all liberals and if it was through personal experience or if he is just believing what garbage spewed by Fox News or Limbaugh or other media conservatives who's goal is to make a buck by fanning the flames of right winged hatred for the left.

Ok. Didn't mean to pry. I just figured you must be watching some kind of network television
news, that YOU FEEL gives you honest reporting of national politics.

Vader wrote: Ok. Didn't mean to pry. I just figured you must be watching some kind of network television
news, that YOU FEEL gives you honest reporting of national politics.

Honest reporting? I quit watching the networks and cable because they don't have 'honest reporting', I think the locals (tv and radio) tend to do a better job of actually 'reporting'. Such as "Joe Politician said such and such today about Bob Politican, and now the weather".

The networks and cable stations go further...they're more like "Joe Politician said such and such today about Bob Politician and here are our two idiot analyst experts, Mike Leftie and Bob Rightie to argue and fight over why Joe said that and what he really meant to say."

A liberal friend of mine forwarded me a great Jon Stewart video about 'honest reporting' and Ron Paul, who took a very strong second place in the Iowa straw poll. Stewart nails it:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... e-top-tier

BTW, I hope you don't consider Limbaugh and Fox to be 'honest reporting'?

Hephaestus wrote:You make some valid points PST; however, I believe the NBC requirement IS derived from natural law. Check Vattel's Law of Nations for more information.

Thanks Hephaestus, I did. They whole book is on line, which was a nice surprise. I admit that by Vattel's definition no one is a natural born citizen unless his father is a citizen, but it seems very old-fashioned to pin everything on a father's status, and I don't know why we should accept Vattel's opinion about what is natural.

Granted there are many people who have the skills to be POTUS, but the Constitution has three clear requirements. You propose we should ignore those requirements if they have the skills?

No, I don't propose that. I accept the existence of a constitutional requirement that a president be a NBC. Poor Arnold is out of luck. But that doesn't settle the issue of how to define NBC. I didn't realize this before, but one court has squarely addressed the question. While most courts with Obama or McCain eligibility lawsuits decided them on procedural or jurisdictional grounds, the Indiana Court of Appeals didn't duck the issue in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. The opinion even mentions Vattel. If you haven't seen it before, it is at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd ... 03.ebb.pdf. As far as I know, that is the only case to actually rule on the merits whether the non-citizenship of Obama's father bars him from the presidency.

Nice reply PST. I appreciate a non-confrontational reply, that's not the norm, thank you!

This issue is something the Supreme Court will have to address, if the media and politicians get off their butt and allow it to be addressed. I recall one of the Supreme Court justices stating that this was a sticky issue and that they'd been avoiding the issue. Not good imo. But, even with this being the case, the Supreme Court HAS addressed this in the past.

According to the Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." (My emphasis added.)

Note that this case doesn't 100 percent clarify, but this case IS in opposition to the case you stated. As the Supreme Court is at a higher level than the Indiana court, I do believe they have precedence.

ameriken wrote: BTW, I hope you don't consider Limbaugh and Fox to be 'honest reporting'?

Just saw your added edit about Rush and Fox.

here's my take:

By your own admission, none are "honest". I agree with you.
Complete truth doesn't exist in human nature. Man's ego and arrogance likes to pretend otherwise.

It's also impossible to compare Rush with Fox. One is a commentator the other is mainly a news source with a wide variety of commentators.
I'll say this though, Rush and Fox News brought some very truthful stories to light about Obama that you would have NEVER heard anywhere else. Why do you think Obama is so ANGRY about their existence?

Rush will at least make you stop and think about things that the "State Run"(funny, but true) media doesn't want you to know. Remember, Rush is a commentator, your final opinions rest with you.

Network "News" doesn't want you to think outside of what they tell you.

Ok, On the point of Obama's birth cert, as I stated in another thread I think there are more pressing issues. The POUS CERT is, in my opnion, a dead issue.

ameriken wrote:You know, had republican voters put out a viable and winnable candidate instead of McCain, and had that candidate chosen a viable and winnable VP, instead of dumba** Palin, perhaps this would not be an issue because BO would not be prez.

Elections are the time to change this crap, and my fear is the GOP is once again going to put in another unwinnable candidate like Bachmann, or if she runs (God forbid)....Palin .

I want to know why you think Palin is dumb? She is a really smart woman weather you agree with her or not. and why do you think Bachmann is "unwinnable"?

Vadar wrote:I agree with you about Bachmann, and I certainly hope she does not get the nomination. Neither her nor screechy mouthed Palin can beat B.O. But in the end, ANYONE would be preferable to "lying tongued" B.O.

Bachmann, again my opnion, dose have a good chance to win the presidency. She is for repealing ObamaCare, she is also for getting our economy back in order. Plus She is a Christian with great values which to me is a plus.
I am not sure I would vote for her to be president ( I am not sure who I will vote for yet) but I am a supporter of her.

jabman wrote: Bachmann, again my opnion, dose have a good chance to win the presidency. She is for repealing ObamaCare, she is also for getting our economy back in order. Plus She is a Christian with great values which to me is a plus.
I am not sure I would vote for her to be president ( I am not sure who I will vote for yet) but I am a supporter of her.

Shhhhhhh!!!! ... saying you're a Christian here can get you beat over the head a lot!
Why do you think I always keep this helmet on over my head?

I also admire Bachmann for her Christian values, but the way that modern society (especially "the media") treats Christians may work against her. If Ronald Reagan (the greatest president of my lifetime) were running today, I don't think he could get elected!

When Obama is booted out, I'm pretty sure that whomever is elected will repeal Obamacare.

Otter wrote:It seems to me the confusion comes in with the adjective, natural. Obama was born a citizen of the United States. Is there something unnatural about either his birth or his citizenship?

In the context of the Constitution, "natural born" simply means "born within the US". Yes, that also grants citizenship in most cases, but citizenship alone does not qualify one for the Presidency.

There are several birth documents which show conflicting birthplaces. Obviously, some are inaccurate (and probably forgeries). Thus, all are suspect.

That being said, the fix is already in. At this point a signed, dated and postmarked foreskin wouldn't matter! Oh, wait, Muslims don't do that...

jabman wrote:I want to know why you think Palin is dumb? She is a really smart woman weather you agree with her or not. and why do you think Bachmann is "unwinnable"?

I never said I disagreed with her, I actually agree with her on many issues and disagree with a few. I've just heard her make many dumb statements and give generic answers to questions that anyone would know as if she was giving some kind of major revelation. I also don't think she'd be able to handle the heat of the office. The media is going to rape her and she's already quit one post because of it. Had she stayed as Gov of AK, I'd have more respect for her as a political leader.

Both Palin and Bachmann will obviously be strong with voters on the right, but they are not going to pull many, if any, from the left, nor are they going to get many from the center. It's in the center where most elections are won and lost.

We've been screwed by people on both sides and I'm not falling in love with any of them. I have as much skepticism about Republican candidates as I do Obama and I ain't drinking anyone's koolaid.

Vader wrote: We're ALL gonna have to ramp down the rhetoric a bit.
That could start with "liberals" not going ballistic at the mere mention of the Tea Party, as though libs themselves aren't the loonie element of the democrat party.

In another thread, someone (I think it was slinky) said we all think we are more moderate than we actually are. What one person sees as loonie or extreme, of course seems moderate to those who hold those beliefs. The fact is, warring media outlets are fanning the flames of partisanship, pushing each side to the more extreme end of the spectrum. They do this out of pure profit motive, with no respect to what the effects are. This is terrible for us as a nation. If you have a two party system that is polarized, decision making on even the smallest things will become agonizing. I wish we had a nice wide variety of parties, as some other countries do. All this strife makes me sad.

[quote="snuginarug]In another thread, someone (I think it was slinky) said we all think we are more moderate than we actually are. What one person sees as loonie or extreme, of course seems moderate to those who hold those beliefs. The fact is, warring media outlets are fanning the flames of partisanship, pushing each side to the more extreme end of the spectrum. They do this out of pure profit motive, with no respect to what the effects are. This is terrible for us as a nation. If you have a two party system that is polarized, decision making on even the smallest things will become agonizing. I wish we had a nice wide variety of parties, as some other countries do. All this strife makes me sad. [/quote]

I concur snuginarug. Watching the progression of these disparate views over the past few years, it doesn't look like anyone is getting closer to agreement, but quite the opposite. I'm afraid we're in for serious conflict in the future. I don't know how long it'll be before it happens, but I fear for my children.