DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 How does calling the birthers deranged make me an apologist? I have nothing to apologize for. you are a liberal because you are poor and see it as an angle to secure more resouces, or you are rich and feel bad that you are better off and you want to force your opinion on others... So either a beggar or an apologist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 I love how this is all still Obama's fault. A cult of crazy people in the public make unfounded claims about his eligibility as POTUS, which is in and of itself ridiculous because not one of his opponents ever brought this up as an issue and the freaking Republican governor of his state said he was born there. He ignores them or doesn't pay attention to them because, well they are a crazy cult and he probably has better stuff to do. Some loudmouth asshat comes out and is spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories in interview and talk shows in an attempt to promote a book on the topic. Obama finally responds by proving this was a crazy bunch of focking lunatics. And somehow this is his fault still because he didn't come out earlier and release his birth certificate to the public, which btw has never been required of a POTUS before and highly bizarre? Of course it's his fault. Not the loons that started the whole thing based on nothing. I agree with Me-2006. Any alignment I felt to the Republilcan ideals is slowly dwindling reading this crap. It reminds me why I hate the radical right so much. Tell me the last president that didn't meet the natural born citizen requirement with their two parents? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted April 28, 2011 you are a liberal because you are poor and see it as an angle to secure more resouces, or you are rich and feel bad that you are better off and you want to force your opinion on others... So either a beggar or an apologist. You are a conservative because you are a toothless redneck who fears god because that's pretty much all you have in life other than your wife/cousin/half sister and retarded children and they tell you at church you need to vote conservative or you are going to hell. Or you are an extremely wealthy businessman who know you have the GOP in your back pocket. So you're either a mongloid or an a-hole. Lookie here. Two can play at the gross generalization game. I think mine's more accurate too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted April 28, 2011 You are a conservative because you are a toothless redneck who fears god because that's pretty much all you have in life other than your wife/cousin/half sister and retarded children and they tell you at church you need to vote conservative or you are going to hell. Or you are an extremely wealthy businessman who know you have the GOP in your back pocket. So you're either a mongloid or an a-hole. Lookie here. Two can play at the gross generalization game. I think mine's more accurate too. Reported Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted April 28, 2011 Reported Which category you in, love? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted April 28, 2011 Which category you in, love? Neither, the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted April 28, 2011 Neither, the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted April 28, 2011 Neither, the gloves don't fit, you must acquit. Wait. What? Are we talking about the gloves she uses as a bra? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 You are a conservative because you are a toothless redneck who fears god because that's pretty much all you have in life other than your wife/cousin/half sister and retarded children and they tell you at church you need to vote conservative or you are going to hell. Or you are an extremely wealthy businessman who know you have the GOP in your back pocket. So you're either a mongloid or an a-hole. Lookie here. Two can play at the gross generalization game. I think mine's more accurate too. lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 71 Posted April 28, 2011 I don't claim to be political one way or the other. I am not out beating the drum for libs or conservatives.. but I do find it very interesting that the burdon of proof is on the accused and not the people making the accusations. Kennedy Assassination - Proven by the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone. In 50 years no solid evidence has every been put forth that anyone else was involved. No death bed confessions.. no turning states evidence for reduced sentences.. nothing, yet the people who believe that it was a conspiracy demand someone prove that it wasn't a conspiracy. Roswell conspiracy - Those people make accussations that Aliens landed and DEMAND that the Government prove them wrong... Obama - People make accusations and DEMAND that someone prove them wrong.... I didn't think that is the way this was supposed to work folks.. I thought if you accused someone of something you were supposed to have the proof that it happened not make the accused prove it didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted April 28, 2011 I don't claim to be political one way or the other. I am not out beating the drum for libs or conservatives.. but I do find it very interesting that the burdon of proof is on the accused and not the people making the accusations. Kennedy Assassination - Proven by the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone. In 50 years no solid evidence has every been put forth that anyone else was involved. No death bed confessions.. no turning states evidence for reduced sentences.. nothing, yet the people who believe that it was a conspiracy demand someone prove that it wasn't a conspiracy. Roswell conspiracy - Those people make accussations that Aliens landed and DEMAND that the Government prove them wrong... Obama - People make accusations and DEMAND that someone prove them wrong.... I didn't think that is the way this was supposed to work folks.. I thought if you accused someone of something you were supposed to have the proof that it happened not make the accused prove it didn't. Im pretty sure obama was the only one who prove anything Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sizzle 0 Posted April 28, 2011 Tell me the last president that didn't meet the natural born citizen requirement with their two parents? There isn't one.....sorry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,369 Posted April 28, 2011 Liberals lose again and keep making themselves look bad. You guys are so good at name calling: Birthers. Crazy. Insane. The president proving he is eligible to hold that office should be the first and most important thing done when running for the office. He's way late in supplying this pertinent information to the American public who legitimately question his citizenship as defined in the constitution for the office of President of the United States of America. These people are not crazy to question his birth location, citizinship, and qualification for office. Why can't they ask a question and get an answer without being labeled. Also, go fock yourselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 71 Posted April 28, 2011 Tell me the last president that didn't meet the natural born citizen requirement with their two parents? Is it requirement that both parents of a President be natural born citizens? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted April 28, 2011 Liberals lose again and keep making themselves look bad. You guys are so good at name calling: Birthers. Crazy. Insane. The president proving he is eligible to hold that office should be the first and most important thing done when running for the office. He's way late in supplying this pertinent information to the American public who legitimately question his citizenship as defined in the constitution for the office of President of the United States of America. These people are not crazy to question his birth location, citizinship, and qualification for office. Why can't they ask a question and get an answer without being labeled. Also, go fock yourselves. LOL at the birther! How stupid do you feel now! He provided the proof and it was certified by Hawaii. The whackos who didn't belive him can take off their tinfoil hats now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted April 28, 2011 There isn't one.....sorry. There were presidents who had neither a mother OR a father who was a citizen of the United States of America. As a matter of fact there were Presidents who were not even born in the United States of America. Van Buren was the 1st President born in the United States of America and he was the 8th President. Andrew Jackson's parents were immigrants from Ireland. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 I thought if you accused someone of something you were supposed to have the proof that it happened not make the accused prove it didn't. every lawsuit requires definitive proof before bringing to court? you sure about that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 There were presidents who had neither a mother OR a father who was a citizen of the United States of America. As a matter of fact there were Presidents who were not even born in the United States of America. Van Buren was the 1st President born in the United States of America and he was the 8th President. Andrew Jackson's parents were immigrants from Ireland. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson, whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada. because they were born before the revolution. All were grandfathered at the time of the adoption of the consitution. If you were to agree with the sentiments of the house at the time at the defined 'natural born citizen' its seems they mention both parents. But it all comes down to the interpretation of the term 'natural born' its a funny term, but explicit in the constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MedStudent 56 Posted April 28, 2011 because they were born before the revolution. All were grandfathered at the time of the adoption of the consitution. If you were to agree with the sentiments of the house at the time at the defined 'natural born citizen' its seems they mention both parents. But it all comes down to the interpretation of the term 'natural born' its a funny term, but explicit in the constitution. Andrew Jackson Buchanan Arthur Wilson Hoover They all had at least one non-natural born parent. Nothing about the parents being naturally born citzens has ever been brought up in US history before. The lengths some people go to try and discredit a black President is amazing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 I don't think Obama should've released it. It won't satisfy any of the mouth-breathing birthers. This thread is living proof of that. When finally confronted with the long-form birth certificate, did the birthers admit that they were wrong and apologize (yes, apologize!) to the President for impugning his good character? Of course not. That would be way too much to expect. All he did by releasing this is legitimize their cause by bending to what they demanded. Major fail on his part, IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 Andrew Jackson Buchanan Arthur Wilson Hoover They all had at least one non-natural born parent. Nothing about the parents being naturally born citzens has ever been brought up in US history before. The lengths some people go to try and discredit a black President is amazing. the length people will go to inject race... pretty low. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gepetto 1,369 Posted April 28, 2011 LOL at the birther! How stupid do you feel now! He provided the proof and it was certified by Hawaii. The whackos who didn't belive him can take off their tinfoil hats now. I'm not a birther. I don't believe things until they're proven. That makes me the opposite of a conspiracy theorist. I just don't have respect for people like you that call people crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldMaid 2,130 Posted April 28, 2011 Yeah, I thought we had a rule about not giving in to terrorist's demands! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 Andrew Jackson Buchanan Arthur Wilson Hoover They all had at least one non-natural born parent. Nothing about the parents being naturally born citzens has ever been brought up in US history before. The lengths some people go to try and discredit a black President is amazing. Exactly. This is all obviously racially motivated. I've never heard anyone demand the birth certificate of a WHITE president. Coincidence? You decide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 the length people will go to inject race... pretty low. Nope, he's just calling a spade a spade. Did you demand to see the birth certificate of George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? George H.W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Didn't think so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,285 Posted April 28, 2011 because they were born before the revolution. All were grandfathered at the time of the adoption of the consitution. If you were to agree with the sentiments of the house at the time at the defined 'natural born citizen' its seems they mention both parents. But it all comes down to the interpretation of the term 'natural born' its a funny term, but explicit in the constitution. You're still holding onto your Enron stock waiting for it to rebound, aren't you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 I don't think Obama should've released it. It won't satisfy any of the mouth-breathing birthers. This thread is living proof of that. When finally confronted with the long-form birth certificate, did the birthers admit that they were wrong and apologize (yes, apologize!) to the President for impugning his good character? Of course not. That would be way too much to expect. All he did by releasing this is legitimize their cause by bending to what they demanded. Major fail on his part, IMO. I'm not sure why it wasn't immediately transparent. There is a huge grey area concerning this issue as interpretated from the constitution. They didn't say citizen, the said natural born citizen, it is there as constitutional law. Just because you don't like the fact that the rule was pressed to what people felt was an extreme degree doesn't negate the fact that it was a rule being questioned that wasn't satified until he finally release the document. Its a non issue that was made into a huge issue because of lack of transparancy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 Nope, he's just calling a spade a spade. Did you demand to see the birth certificate of George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? George H.W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Didn't think so. George Bush's got lost. All of them had two citizen parents. Pretty low. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 I'm not sure why it wasn't immediately transparent. There is a huge grey area concerning this issue as interpretated from the constitution. They didn't say citizen, the said natural born citizen, it is there as constitutional law. Just because you don't like the fact that the rule was pressed to what people felt was an extreme degree doesn't negate the fact that it was a rule being questioned that wasn't satified until he finally release the document. Its a non issue that was made into a huge issue because of lack of transparancy. No, it was demeaning to even demand it. Nobody ever demanded it of another President. Then a black man becomes President and suddenly everyone wants to see his birth certificate. I was glad that he wouldn't cow-tow to racists and now I'm actually a little upset that he did release it. He shouldn't have to prove a d@mn thing to the likes of you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 No, it was demeaning to even demand it. Nobody ever demanded it of another President. Then a black man becomes President and suddenly everyone wants to see his birth certificate. I was glad that he wouldn't cow-tow to racists and now I'm actually a little upset that he did release it. He shouldn't have to prove a d@mn thing to the likes of you. The racial defense. The last president with a foreign born parent was woodrow wilson, he was born in virgina, son of a reverand, 3rd of 4 children.... it was 1856...don't be a choade and inject race when you have nothing else to defend. Its weak. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 George Bush's got lost. All of them had two citizen parents. Pretty low. Like MedStudent said, there are historical examples of other Presidents who had one non-natural born parent. Were they harassed to this extent? I doubt it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,058 Posted April 28, 2011 The racial defense. Sometimes you just have to go with the truth. I know I'll take tons of heat for it. You'll all deny that you're racist and pretend I'm a horrible person for even insinuating such a thing. But deep down, I think part of you probably knows I'm right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 71 Posted April 28, 2011 every lawsuit requires definitive proof before bringing to court? you sure about that? Pretty darn sure the burdon of proof is on the prosecutor or claimnent. Doesn't mean that people can't bring suit for stupid a$$ reasons. A lot of times those idiot reasons are thrown out of court for being stupid or there is recourse for the defendent to counter sue for defamation. My link I accuse you of stealing my wallet... I take you to court. I have to provide evidence that you stole my wallet and then you defend that accusation. I can't take you to court and claim you stole my wallet and then sit back and tell you to prove you didn't without presenting evidence that you did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted April 28, 2011 because they were born before the revolution. All were grandfathered at the time of the adoption of the consitution. If you were to agree with the sentiments of the house at the time at the defined 'natural born citizen' its seems they mention both parents. But it all comes down to the interpretation of the term 'natural born' its a funny term, but explicit in the constitution. Woodrow Wilson's and Herbert Hoover's parents were born before the American Revolution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,285 Posted April 28, 2011 The racial defense. The last president with a foreign born parent was woodrow wilson, he was born in virgina, son of a reverand, 3rd of 4 children.... it was 1856...don't be a choade and inject race when you have nothing else to defend. Its weak. You have gone about your "two parent" citizen theory, you want to provide some documentation that is what is meant by "natural born citizen" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 The racial defense. The last president with a foreign born parent was woodrow wilson, he was born in virgina, son of a reverand, 3rd of 4 children.... it was 1856...don't be a choade and inject race when you have nothing else to defend. Its weak. repost for those behind in the discussion... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 71 Posted April 28, 2011 Woodrow Wilson's and Herbert Hoover's parents were born before the American Revolution? Of course... Woodrow Wilson's mother is in the Guiness Book of Records for giving birth when she was EIGHTY YEARS OLD!!! Thomas Woodrow Wilson ([b]December 28, 1856[/b] – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, from 1913 to 1921. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted April 28, 2011 You have gone about your "two parent" citizen theory, you want to provide some documentation that is what is meant by "natural born citizen" Mike, that is an EXCELLENT question. That is pretty much the whole deal. We have an undefined term that was discussed a long time ago in a certain way, and historical precedent has been one foreign born is fine, but who knows. It brings up a relevant discussion that is being quashed due to race, which is ridic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nikki2200 4 Posted April 28, 2011 Of course... Woodrow Wilson's mother is in the Guiness Book of Records for giving birth when she was EIGHTY YEARS OLD!!! Thomas Woodrow Wilson ([b]December 28, 1856[/b] – February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States, from 1913 to 1921. Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 – October 20, 1964) was the 31st President of the United States (1929–1933). Hoover's mother, Hulda Minthorn Hoover, was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada, of English and Irish (probably Scots-Irish) descent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lambert58 71 Posted April 28, 2011 Herbert Clark Hoover (August 10, 1874 – October 20, 1964) was the 31st President of the United States (1929–1933). Hoover's mother, Hulda Minthorn Hoover, was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada, of English and Irish (probably Scots-Irish) descent. Guess records were made to be broken... sorry Mrs. Wilson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
