OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[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?

[lch]

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.

I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".

Edit: I didn't bother to read the rest of your post closely before since it seemed that you were unable to comply by my request to give evidence to back your theories. I just read the rest of it now.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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

That is exactly the school registration that I have been referring to some pages back already, in case it was news to you. You may want to reread my posts.

The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".

The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes.

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.

[chrispedersen]

rabelais:

MA-Man pretender design. Dormant Cyclops. +3,+1, -, +3, +1, -3.
Dom 7 iirc

Several concepts here.

First, growth to help offset the old age of your crones.
Second. Overtax. The idea is to build castles as fast as possible. You are going to use forresters (at some point) as necessary to patrol.
Third You are going to use your bards soothing song, plus the reinvig from the earth bless to have a competitive advantage in your dominion. You will be pushing drain, but your bards and reinvi will make you largely immune - which brings us to point four:
You have a unique position in that your mages have good military leadership - at least the mother of avalon does.
she will be your default military commander.
Fifth: Minor theme Foresters/bards have excellent precions especially as bards can selfbuff with eagle eye. Add a bow of bowtox, or similar to create missile thugs.
Sixth: Minor You will have very stealth capable commanders, and stealthy sacreds summons.
Seventh Minor theme. Consider fear items or with death access, terror. Your bards soothing songs will help.

I still hate MA man. But I ran a few tests of this and I was able to get three castles started in the first year without much difficulty. Late game is still your problem however, without access to death, blood, or significant astral.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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?

Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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?

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.


Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

Bachellor of Science, Chemical Engineering, Computer engineering, Minor Psychology Ga Institute of technology. I suspect my 'scientific background' is adequate for this discussion.

My memory was close but perfect on the filing date - the date was Aug 21 not Aug 28.

But the essential *facts* of the matter are real simple. Berg asked for Obama / DNC / FEC to prove US citizenship. Rather than provide evidence of the same - the defense requested dismissal for lack of standing.

In other words, the judge said - you don't have a right to compel obama to prove he is a citizen.

I think Berg's origianl question is actually pretty reasonable, and find the whole defense, and ruling pretty unreasonable. And I would think that if the same were done to any candidate.

ymmv.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

But the essential *facts* of the matter are real simple. Berg asked for Obama / DNC / FEC to prove US citizenship. Rather than provide evidence of the same - the defense requested dismissal for lack of standing.

In other words, the judge said - you don't have a right to compel obama to prove he is a citizen.

I think Berg's origianl question is actually pretty reasonable, and find the whole defense, and ruling pretty unreasonable. And I would think that if the same were done to any candidate.

His words, like I quoted, were rather "It doesn't matter". You can read the exact document at the link that I gave. Since Berg isn't satisfied with that, he appealed the same complaint to the US Supreme Court again. I wish him the best of luck.

In that second link, you'll also find a link to Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate, which is enough to prove his US citizenship to a layman like me, unless somebody can make a compelling case before court that it isn't. The second paragraph in the page that I linked to even has this:

A similar court challenge was previously made to the citizenship of Obama's presidential rival, Senator John McCain, arguing that McCain did not qualify as a "natural born" US citizen

so I'd say that justice was served: Surprise, surprise, they didn't stop McCain's presidential campaign dead in its tracks because of this, either.