View Poll Results: After reading post one. I believe:

Voters
92. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama records should be finnally brought to light.

    26 28.26%
  • He has already shown all that is needed to be President.

    44 47.83%
  • He is president now. Leave him alone.

    22 23.91%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 120
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    You are talking about the highest, most powerful office in the land. In the constitution it says "Natural Born". I would think that for the office of US President we would be able to see an ORIGINAL birth certificate. In some cases there are fires or other events that destroyed these records. But there has been no claim of that by anyone. There are all kind of scandals, hidden stories, and attorneys surrounding these politicians of late. So it would just be nice that at least the #1 spot could have a complete resume (sort of speak). Is it really that much to ask FOR the citizens of this great country? The majority of these government jobs seem to be corrupt or in question. Political figures (all parties) can do almost anything and they still have their job. If you or I drove DWI or were convicted of tax evasion would we even have a job to go back to? Why, do WE have to live at a higher standard then them? This court case will put an end to all the talk.

    The problem is, just because you are elected President, does not mean you surrender your constitutional rights. His Birth Cert has been declared legal and legit by the HI registar. He should be held to the same standards as every other president, where as when a duly elected official looks it over and says yes it is a legal birth certificate. That happened. In fact a few papers looked it over and said it looks identicle to other Birth Certs of the same era. I'd be more concerned about secret energy meetings that actually take place during an elected officials term, on Government Property, on Taxpayers dime. I'd like those papers to see the light of day before someone's medical history.

    I mean, with your assertion that we have a right to his personal documents, it could also be said that we have a right to know if William Rehnquist's addiction to Placidyl or his declining mental state impacted any of his court rulings. Should we have the ability to take him to court to open his medical records? Should being elected to any office mean giving up your personal privacy? NO.
    That's why his documents are looked at by his states authorities. They can verify without making something public. So lets make other documents that are not public, public just because of a potential job? And what if they dont get elected? Anyway to take it back? We all ready have an acute shortage of fairminded and legitimate people looking to change their world. Taking away their individual rights is just gonna stop others from trying to change their local governments and our country.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    And such represents the polarized divide in this country. Where does it end? Examine the words of those spewing insane nonsense (here, other forums, Talking Heads on Radio/TV, etc) against Obama or any Democratic congress, and ask if it serves to separate into Us VS Them or to bring those with differences together.

    Where_Does_It_End?
    It ends when there is no reason to question anymore. It ends when those we elect show all, with open arms. It ends when all elected have to follow the same laws and rules that we do. It ends when the elected have to use the same retirement, and medical plans that we do. It ends when the way we approve a referendum is the way it is followed through. It ends when ALL the major media outlet show both sides and show the untainted truth. It ends when the Constitution of the United States is read as intended and not infringed upon. It ends when someone questions a problem all citizens (even in this forum) respect it and allow it to prove or disprove itself. It ends when there is accountability.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    And such represents the polarized divide in this country. Where does it end? Examine the words of those spewing insane nonsense (here, other forums, Talking Heads on Radio/TV, etc) against Obama or any Democratic congress, and ask if it serves to separate into Us VS Them or to bring those with differences together.

    Where_Does_It_End?
    As Ex-military, this is not a Partisan position for me. But one of Honor and also of Duty. He took an oath. Plenty of people DIED in other wars that changed their minds once finding out their orders. So the precedent is set, don't want to go to war, but want the government cheese and benefits? Just claim the commander in chief is illegal. I say strip him down to PVT and let him break some rocks for awhile. Then deport him. He does not deserve the right to participate in our society. I know its harsh. But its dereliction anyway you spin it.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    The problem is, just because you are elected President, does not mean you surrender your constitutional rights. His Birth Cert has been declared legal and legit by the HI registar. He should be held to the same standards as every other president, where as when a duly elected official looks it over and says yes it is a legal birth certificate. That happened. In fact a few papers looked it over and said it looks identicle to other Birth Certs of the same era. I'd be more concerned about secret energy meetings that actually take place during an elected officials term, on Government Property, on Taxpayers dime. I'd like those papers to see the light of day before someone's medical history.

    I mean, with your assertion that we have a right to his personal documents, it could also be said that we have a right to know if William Rehnquist's addiction to Placidyl or his declining mental state impacted any of his court rulings. Should we have the ability to take him to court to open his medical records? Should being elected to any office mean giving up your personal privacy? NO.
    That's why his documents are looked at by his states authorities. They can verify without making something public. So lets make other documents that are not public, public just because of a potential job? And what if they dont get elected? Anyway to take it back? We all ready have an acute shortage of fairminded and legitimate people looking to change their world. Taking away their individual rights is just gonna stop others from trying to change their local governments and our country.
    Proof of citizenship is REQUIRED for the job. It is only a birth certificate. You want medical records to. Fine I really don't care. The elected should be held a high standard anyways.

    And directly to - mrloserpunk- I think we may have bigger problems in this state, country, city and my town (greece) these days...agree?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Proof of citizenship is REQUIRED for the job. It is only a birth certificate. You want medical records to. Fine I really don't care. The elected should be held a high standard anyways.
    And he showed his proof of citizenship, which was attested to by HI authorities. But that's not enough for you, is it? Would this be sufficient for you?:

    Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama's Placenta | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
    Last edited by Bujin; 10/11/2009 at 01:25 PM.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    Proof of citizenship is REQUIRED for the job. It is only a birth certificate. You want medical records to. Fine I really don't care. The elected should be held a high standard anyways.
    No, I dont want medical records. I want people to know that they can run for office, without having to lie, cover up or otherwise deal with youthfull problems. U think Bush never experimented with narcotics? Of course, but because of the washing machine spin running for office currently means, if you commited any type of indescretion your either toast as your opponent will embelish the incident, or you simply dont run. Leaving the people who can cover up or hide, pay off or lie left to be elected. These people deserve the same rights as you and ME. So if the law says a registar can approve it, and one does, its legit. The law does not say Finally Pre gets to approve it, or the Republican Party or anyone else for that matter. Of course its all IMHO.

    And directly to - mrloserpunk- I think we may have bigger problems in this state, country, city and my town (greece) these days...agree
    Totally. I am sure the area in Ca where this is being brought to court has much more legit issues to deal with as well. Hence my hope that the trial costs are repaid to that state. Off Topic, but Greece has been having a serious leadership problem with the Police department if my memory serves me right. I have a coworker who said she was threatened with a ticket by somecop if she didn't go to a dinner with him. I have suspicions that she is jumping on a bandwagon, but if half of what I've read is true there are some real bad things that happened in greece over the last few years.
    Last edited by mrloserpunk; 10/11/2009 at 01:34 PM.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  7.    #47  
    The law does allow the citizens to question. And that is what all of us do from time to time. That is all that is being done here. And that is the only point I make about this case. We, being all of us, will be allowed to see all documents as presented and those entrusted with authority to examine them in a public forum. And yes the law does give me and you (all of us) the right to approve it in the way we question it (free speech).
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    The law does allow the citizens to question. And that is what all of us do from time to time. That is all that is being done here. And that is the only point I make about this case. We, being all of us, will be allowed to see all documents as presented and those entrusted with authority to examine them in a public forum. And yes the law does give me and you (all of us) the right to approve it in the way we question it (free speech).
    I disagree. Point in case, the 2000 elections. There are plenty of people who wanted to sue because of the results and decision. A court ruling prevented that from occuring. In the same vien, multiple courts have thrown out multiple bids to have this issue tried. So while they do have freedom of speech, they do not have a constitutional right to review a elected politicians original birth cert. I do understand where you are coming from, in one hand it seems to make sense. But we must grant every right in the constitution to every citizen, including politicians for the document to hold it's importance.
    Last edited by mrloserpunk; 10/11/2009 at 01:47 PM.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    The law does allow the citizens to question. And that is what all of us do from time to time. That is all that is being done here. And that is the only point I make about this case. We, being all of us, will be allowed to see all documents as presented and those entrusted with authority to examine them in a public forum. And yes the law does give me and you (all of us) the right to approve it in the way we question it (free speech).
    You are joking... right?

    Guess most don't know the verification process (investigation) that goes into a person who wants to run for President.

    To put plainly, all of this is silly political pandering.

    But the Republicans are spinning so fast out of control... lol

    Sticking to substantiative issues would serve well for the Republicans.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    You are joking... right?

    Guess most don't know the verification process (investigation) that goes into a person who wants to run for President.

    To put plainly, all of this is silly political pandering.

    But the Republicans are spinning so fast out of control... lol

    Sticking to substantiative issues would serve well for the Republicans.
    I can understand where he is coming from. For the past few cycles, there has not been alot of trust in elected officials or government process. I can see why people distrust officials. It does not change the process though, it just leads to suspicion. Obama may have been better off handeling this in a differant matter, but again its his right to choose how he approaches it.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    You are joking... right?

    Guess most don't know the verification process (investigation) that goes into a person who wants to run for President.

    To put plainly, all of this is silly political pandering.

    But the Republicans are spinning so fast out of control... lol

    Sticking to substantiative issues would serve well for the Republicans.
    WOW! I think that open book for a President is a must. Sorry you see it as a party issue and not a United States issue.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    WOW! I think that open book for a President is a must.
    Hopefully Obama has not paid this BS any attention... as I thought, you did not mention anything about the investigation... do you know? Can you explain it? This is not only about obama... but it will be a waste of time attempting to explain this... it won't matter. You have one course and that is it. No matter what facts you are presented.


    Sorry you see it as a party issue and not a United States issue.

    Because I've not seen one Dem mention this...

    As explained above, the question has already been answered. The only thing that will happen is more of the same answer. Then this will enter into "conspiracy theory" conjecture.

    Sorry, but you are way off on this one.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #53  
    This is the problem with reporting in America regarding legal issues - not only does the general public not understand legal issues, neither do the people reporting it.

    The current status of the case, as of October 11, is that all discovery except as it relates directly to a pending Motion to Dismiss has been stopped by the judge while he considers the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In fact "Doctor" Orly Taitz just filed an Ex Parte Motion (in other words she tried to avoid that whole pesky hearing thing) to start discovery back up which was denied on October 8, 2009. So the case is in somewhat of a holding pattern while the judge considers whether the case has enough merit to make it past a motion to dismiss. Only the most frivolous of cases can't make it past a Motion to Dismiss. Even if it makes it past this pending motion it still has to make it past a Motion for Summary Judgment which is set in early December.

    The order that sets the trial is a standard scheduling order issued in almost all cases in Federal Court. It also sets deadlines for Summary Judgment issues and set a pretrial. The Motion to Dismiss the entire case has not even been ruled upon by the Court yet. All the trial date means is that the Plaintiff's have been competent enough to get through a scheduling conference with the Court - for those of you who don't understand, being competent enough as a lawyer to get a case to, and past, a scheduling conference, is a very, very, very, very, low measure of competence.

    Anyone who hails the setting of a trial date as some sort of "victory" does not understand the process. Now if they can make it past the summary judgment ruling (not just past the hearing) that will be impressive for this case. There is a good chance they won't even make it past the Motion to Dismiss.

    (By the way, anyone who has actually looked at the merits of these birther cases, and after a rational and complete examination of the evidence, thinks they have more than .00000000001% of merit needs to run, not walk, to their nearest psychologist for a quick exam.)
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Hopefully Obama has not paid this BS any attention... as I thought, you did not mention anything about the investigation... do you know? Can you explain it? This is not only about obama... but it will be a waste of time attempting to explain this... it won't matter. You have one course and that is it. No matter what facts you are presented.





    Because I've not seen one Dem mention this...

    As explained above, the question has already been answered. The only thing that will happen is more of the same answer. Then this will enter into "conspiracy theory" conjecture.

    Sorry, but you are way off on this one.
    oooooooooooooooooooooooook?

    It's a wonder that the Fed., state and local governments are the way they are. We need to watch over the elected and make sure they work for us. It does not mater what the party they represent. It is exactly that. They represent us. Name who you want, past, present. left or right. They should always be kept in check. Then if someone or group wants to label it conspiracy or conjecture, who really cares, we at least are watching instead of sitting back and being rolled over.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Finally Pre View Post
    oooooooooooooooooooooooook?

    It's a wonder that the Fed., state and local governments are the way they are. We need to watch over the elected and make sure they work for us. It does not mater what the party they represent. It is exactly that. They represent us. Name who you want, past, present. left or right. They should always be kept in check. Then if someone or group wants to label it conspiracy or conjecture, who really cares, we at least are watching instead of sitting back and being rolled over.
    LOL... I'm out of here... you don't have a clue. More than likely laughing at me for entertaining your drivel.

    Read this and let me know what you think... afterwards, you can let me know the investigative process that I asked about you earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    This is the problem with reporting in America regarding legal issues - not only does the general public not understand legal issues, neither do the people reporting it.

    The current status of the case, as of October 11, is that all discovery except as it relates directly to a pending Motion to Dismiss has been stopped by the judge while he considers the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. In fact "Doctor" Orly Taitz just filed an Ex Parte Motion (in other words she tried to avoid that whole pesky hearing thing) to start discovery back up which was denied on October 8, 2009. So the case is in somewhat of a holding pattern while the judge considers whether the case has enough merit to make it past a motion to dismiss. Only the most frivolous of cases can't make it past a Motion to Dismiss. Even if it makes it past this pending motion it still has to make it past a Motion for Summary Judgment which is set in early December.

    The order that sets the trial is a standard scheduling order issued in almost all cases in Federal Court. It also sets deadlines for Summary Judgment issues and set a pretrial. The Motion to Dismiss the entire case has not even been ruled upon by the Court yet. All the trial date means is that the Plaintiff's have been competent enough to get through a scheduling conference with the Court - for those of you who don't understand, being competent enough as a lawyer to get a case to, and past, a scheduling conference, is a very, very, very, very, low measure of competence.

    Anyone who hails the setting of a trial date as some sort of "victory" does not understand the process. Now if they can make it past the summary judgment ruling (not just past the hearing) that will be impressive for this case. There is a good chance they won't even make it past the Motion to Dismiss.

    (By the way, anyone who has actually looked at the merits of these birther cases, and after a rational and complete examination of the evidence, thinks they have more than .00000000001% of merit needs to run, not walk, to their nearest psychologist for a quick exam.)
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    This is infantile horse-hooey. You've missed so many opportunities to build a foundation for the elementary concepts you've been forwarding and still, you're only going in circles.
    Woah man, take it easy. We were having a civil discussion. No need to insert insults. His opinion is his and I'm certain name calling is not going to see him changing it. Lets try to focus on merits and less on name calling. I know you meant the argument does does not stack up...reguardless your less likely to change minds with how you said it. And I say this because thats been my weakness when debating or discussion politics or current affairs. I have lost a few friends being too quick to dismiss their opinions as childish....
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  17. bezoris's Avatar
    Posts
    44 Posts
    Global Posts
    46 Global Posts
    #57  
    You're kidding, right?! Birther's, here? At Precentral? Why, that's so post-election of you! How very mindlessly belligerent...

    Don't you know that we're now post-Nobel? It's not enough anymore to be simply racist.

    Oh, wait. I guess Glenn Beck hasn't yet filled you in on all that...

    PS: I liked the misspelling of finnally in the Poll (as in: Obama records should be finnally brought to light.)
    I'm really hoping that it was deliberate, designed to emphasize the idiocy of those that would would promulgate such claims.
    Last edited by bezoris; 10/11/2009 at 08:08 PM.
  18. #58  
    [QUOTE=ccureton;1967095]
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    One has to wonder if all this extreme partisan effort and expense would have been bothered with if McCain, who was born in Panama, had been elected. Somehow, I seriously doubt it. Republicans just can't get it through their heads that when you're in a hole, it's wise to stop diggin'.

    [url= Is John McCain a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?[/url]

    just for the record. While john mccain was born in an area surrounded by the country of panama he was not born in panama. He was born on a us military base which is us soil. Therefore he was born in the united states.

    not to rant but this particular argument makes me mad for not only being factaully ignorant but also incredibly insulting to servicemen and women overseas by suggesting that their service could eliminate their children from becoming president.

    [url]
    Umm... this whole thing is stupid, but I want to point out that he was NOT born on a military base. It had not officially been designated as one when he was born. And to say "Oh that doesn't matter" shows how little you morons actually care about the constitution.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrloserpunk View Post
    Woah man, take it easy. We were having a civil discussion. No need to insert insults. His opinion is his and I'm certain name calling is not going to see him changing it. Lets try to focus on merits and less on name calling. I know you meant the argument does does not stack up...reguardless your less likely to change minds with how you said it. And I say this because thats been my weakness when debating or discussion politics or current affairs. I have lost a few friends being too quick to dismiss their opinions as childish....
    Great point! I think it probably happens to most of us.

    Kind of like when you're in your invincible teen years and think you parents don't have a clue.

    And as you continue growing up, you realize they might have been right about a few things. You might, if you're lucky enough (to have good parent(s)), realize they were right about most things (after all no one is perfect).
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoris View Post
    PS: I liked the misspelling of finnally in the Poll (as in: Obama records should be finnally brought to light.)
    I'm really hoping that it was deliberate, designed to emphasize the idiocy of those that would would promulgate such claims.
    Yeah, I feel you're probably right. I very rarely see typosinfourm postes,
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions