OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[HoneyBadger]

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

[licker]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

You really are much more like Bush than you probably realize.

Just saying...

[Darkwind]

I've tried to stay out of this, but really. Comparing someone to Bush? That sounds a lot like ad hominem to me (plus, HB might like Bush and consider that a compliment, though it was fairly clearly, to me, meant as an insult).

Just saying...

Edit: Also, why compare HB to Bush? The current flow of the thread had very little, if anything, to do with bush. HB wasn't saying (s)he (I forget which gender HB is, unfortunately; sigh, and sorry HB) isn't like Bush, you just threw the comment out there. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[licker]

Originally Posted by Darkwind

I've tried to stay out of this, but really. Comparing someone to Bush? That sounds a lot like ad hominem to me (plus, HB might like Bush and consider that a compliment, though it was fairly clearly, to me, meant as an insult).

Just saying...

Edit: Also, why compare HB to Bush? The current flow of the thread had very little, if anything, to do with bush. HB wasn't saying (s)he (I forget which gender HB is, unfortunately; sigh, and sorry HB) isn't like Bush, you just threw the comment out there. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Hey, he brought up bush first, in a negative light, that wasn't the first time I made this comparison to what I perceived to be a hypocritical position. If you want all the facts please read all the posts, else you are merely cherry picking statements out of context.

Besides how do you know I'm not bush or a member of his family and HBs insults towards Bush personal attacks on me???

Seriously people, this is an OT thread on politics, if you can't take a little fire why are you here? Besides, does HB have an issue with my statement? If not does he need a nanny to 'protect' him?

Hell you want to express a strong opinion about bush or obama or whomever (again, in the context of THIS thread) and not be willing to have some back and forth?

I dunno, I don't see anything out of hand in this thread, though there have been some strong opinions expressed.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

You don't have to tell me, Tichy, I just wanted to squash this particular conspiracy theory once and for all, and I think that's been accomplished.

As far as not going to court if you don't have to--well, who wants to do that? Who here enjoys the thought of jury duty? I also understand there are court fees involved, not to mention lawyer fees.

And the statement "You're not even qualified to bring your argument to my attention." holds as much weight for me as "Your argument is fallacious and silly and wrong." What's the difference?

Honey, I'm not being facetious - but the difference between those two statements is enormous. The first should be deeply offensive to every american citizen, in my opinion.

In the first instance, a judge is telling an american citizen he doesn't have the right to find out if a candidate is an american citizen. I think every american citizen has that right - and should want that right - just as we uphold every tenet of the constitution. This one guy paid his own money to investigate something, and paid the fees to have his day in court - and the judge said.. sorry an american citizen does not have that right.

This is VERY different than saying - your argument is fallacious and wrong, and it is hereby proved that Obama met the qualifications for office.

As for yours and other comments:

The best way to squash this would have been to provide a birth certificate to the court. Failing to do so only added fuel to the fire. The same suit has been brought in three separate venues.

Obama himself never had to appear in court - just like a traffic ticket, any representative could have presented the information.
Court fees are insignificant compared to the question - if it really was important, the prevailing party can seek to have the opponent pay ALL court costs (and expenses) for a frivelous suit.

For civil matters of this kind, there would probably not be a jury; this would probably be decided by a presiding judge, as it would be in both parties interests.

As for Gandalf's comment about the CIA: Call me an optimist. First, this as a jurisdiction matter would fall more under the purview of the Dept of Treasure (Secret Service), or the FBI than it would under the CIA, who by law would be enjoined from investigating it (foreign or counter intelligence only). Restating that, any cia agent investigating that would be subject to legal sanction.

So yes, I am optimistic that I don't believe the CIA investigated it. I also don't believe that ANY body actually has jurisdiction, which is why this is falling between the cracks. The party (as in party to a lawsuit) that does have presumptive jurisdiction is the democrat party, which is why it was name in the lawsuit.

[Omnirizon]

Has Godwin's Law kicked in yet?

If not that's amazing. Good job Dom3 comm.

Godwin's Law

[HoneyBadger]

My party in this non-election will refrain from mudslinging, and stick to the issues, so while my inestimable non-opponent is busy sputtering, grasping at straws, and citing unfounded comparisons, name-calling, and baseless arguments, I'd rather stick to the non-topic, which, while it is itself completely silly, has yet to be backed up with any sort of topicality, reasonability, or reality.

So, in the words of our fourtieth President, Ronald Reagan: "Wake me up when something happens".

[HoneyBadger]

Ok, well, I'm glad that's straightened out. Now that he's President, it's good to know that he's a citizen of the United States. Thanks for clearing that up, Chrispedersen.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Ok, well, I'm glad that's straightened out. Now that he's President, it's good to know that he's a citizen of the United States. Thanks for clearing that up, Chrispedersen.

Honey, you meant the comment flippantly. And you are not practising the tolerance you preached a mere two? posts ago.

First, Barrak is not the president of the United States, he's the president elect.

Second, this is the reason these kinds of things matter.

IF Barack was found not to be a natural born citizen (and no I don't think it will happen) it is entirely possible that his selection as President would be voided. His inauguration would not be legal.

And if you thought 2000 was bad, all hell would break loose. This is one of the reasons I thought these kinds of questions should have been resolved back in August.

[HoneyBadger]

Chrispedersen, lots of people aren't qualified to bring their arguments to the attention of others. There's nothing offensive about that notion, except to those very people who spend their time wasting the time, and patience, and good nature, of others, with their nonsensical-and at times malevolently motivated-flights of fancy.

We're forced to tolerate them, because our legal system is a benevolent one that acts to embrace and protect the broadest base of the population as possible, and because we're a generous and reasonable people who like to think of ourselves as open-minded. But it doesn't transform their trivial foci into anything grand or noble.