[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Mithras

I'm probably being niave here, but theres a bit censored on the birth certificate that is shown online. Now this is just a stab in the dark but is it censored for a reason could it be used to damage Obama in some way? If so then you have a perfectly legitemate reason not to make a hard copy of said birth certificate to a publinc domain (court) unless required to do so.

But personally I don't think you'd take that as proof, perhaps the judge will be left wing as well. BTW My point is however high up this goes somebody (not neccessaraly you) can still argue it as invalid. Theres just some people out there who pay no attention to what others say. Again I'm not referring to you Chris, in fact you have been quite good. But you have been unclear about what it was you wanted, I vaguely remember you saying that ALL Obama needed to do was show a birth certificate, then gradually elevated that to it has to be in court and a hard copy.

Oh and I think you did question his citizenship, in fact a few pages ago... if you want me to dig it up I can, but right now I'm out of time.

Please feel free to refresh your memory of the thread. This particular subthread evolved essentially as thus:

a). I fairly often referred to soetoro as soetoro. Ich accused me of trolling and asked me to quit.
b). I responded that I found it useful to inform people that Barry had changed his name. Did Ich know why he changed his name - both the reason given in his book and what I consider to be the likely actual reason.
c. The conversation devolved into why names matter, and why its relevent to the election. My post on said subject is on page 10.
I have copied it for you:

'Be reasonable. Do it my way.'

I find it generally useful to inform others - that barack obama changed his name. So I'm afraid I shan't be following your prescription.

You may *not* be aware of the law in the United States - but when a lawyer registers to practise law, he is required *only* practise law under his registered name, and he is required to disclose any other names he may have used.

At the very least, Obama violated this law. Now, we know that Barry entered the country as Barry. But we have no knowledge did he attend college as Barry - it seems in part he did. Did he receive scholarships/acceptance as an immigrant student? We don't know. Barry won't release his records.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to run for public office under a different name. Recently here in Florida, a democrat running for office tried to change her name to something more hispanic. She was booted off the ballot by the courts for failure to abide by this law.

So, you see it very much does matter what Barry's name is. But lets not let a little matter of legality get in the way of annointing the next great democratic candidate.

My next quote was on page 14:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

While I disagree with your argument that it is necessary to show legal evidence in order to prove that a candidates behaviour is relevent - nonetheless, here you go.

Take a look a Berg V. Obama, a.k.a Berg V. the DNC. Filed by a Democrat, in the Philadephia circuit.

Here is a further example of why a candidates action do matter.
Attached is a link putattively to an attorney search in illinois for Barrack Obama. Notice that it has no other names listed for Barrack - notice also evidence that he did indeed go by Barry Soetero. http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=976

Here is the illinois court systems page where a lawyer is required to file wth the illinois supreme court if he wishes to practice under a different name: https://www.iardc.org/reg_faqs.html.

There are many supreme court cases - such as, oh, SCHWARE v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) where the supreme court has examined the question of a lawyers uses of aliases, and the states regulations requiring registration of same. While not the point of this case, the supreme court has long accepted that states have a legitimate purpose in so regulating.

So, I think its fairly well established that the actions of the candidate matter - that things such as citizenship, and name do matter.

In fact its so obvious, I realy wonder why you would even need it explained. Personally, I think its idiotic that Barry should have left these matters on the table. Why not release his birth certificates, and his personal records.

I mean honestly - you democrats are such hypocrates. The democrats made such huge fodder about Bushes National Guard records. And you don't think Soetoro's records are relevent?

Let me ask you something. Wouldn't you rather have these issues resolved PRIOR to the election, rather than AFTER the election? Can you even believe the ****storm we are going to be in if a court rules Soetoro isn't eligible to be president?

The next quote pg 15:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?

To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

Etc. Etc. No where will you find that I believe Obama isn't a citizen, or even that he isn't a natural born US citizen. In fact on page 18? I said I hope that he *is*.

Read my argument and you will consistently see that I believe a candidates actions count; that qualifications should be examined as part of the system; and that obama as a political move should have just released the documents.