The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 11:02 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:00 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
He has already validated it.


Not in a court of law. The press doesn't validate such things/
Quote:
The constitutional question is moot. He is a natural born citizen. If someone has evidence that a fraud has been committed in regards to his citizenship, then they need to follow the due process of law. However, the proof is *not* his burden to bear. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


The fact that he's a natural born citizen in no way makes the question moot, because it is a matter of precedent. The burden of proof is on him to establish that he is qualified. He is not charged with a crime; innocent until proven guilty is not relevant.

Quote:
You, and those of you who believe this is some sort of legitimate constitutional question, are trying to make a massive shift in the way the law works in this country. Just because a person levels a wild accusation does not mean there is suddenly a burden of evidence on the person who they accused. In other words, if someone stood up and shouted that obama was a wife beater, that person would need to present actual evidence. You and those of you making these arguments would say, in that case, that it would be on Obama's shoulder's to prove he was not a wife beater. You are demanding that he prove that he was not born in Kenya. Not only are you doing that, but the people who are pushing these laws suits keep raising the bar as to what constitutes satisfactory evidence. THey asked for a birth certificate, and he produced it. They tried to lie and claim it was a fake, and when *that* failed, they said the birth certificate he produced wasn't good enough. Now the Hawaii Dept of Health have confirmed his Vital records, and that he is a natural born citizen of the US. And *still* you think there is some sort of legitimate case here.


I really don't care what these people are doing, because I happen to think that Obama's birth certificate is perfectly valid. All you're doing here is attributing to me positions I haven't taken.

I just want him to produce it in court. Waving it around for the press isn't legally good for anything. All this nonsense about Innocent until proven guilty is irrelevant. No criminal charge is at issue. No one is trying toc hange the way the law works. You're just trying to create a catch-22 of wanting people to present their evidence against him in court, then when they try, claiming that there's not sufficient evidence to warrant presenting evidence. Now you've moved on to this silly "innovent until prven guilty" irrelevancy.

Quote:
He has already proven that he was born in this country. He has presented a short form birth certificate, and the Hawaii Health Department has confirmed the existence of his long form birth certificate. You don't get to demand that he produce something that Hawaii state laws says is private. You just don't.


Yes you do. Hawaii does not get to impose its privacy law on the rest of the country. **** Hawaii. He hasn't yet proven anything. Claiming you have a birth certificate, and even publicly displaying it do not satisfy anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
He has already done so. He was born in Hawaii. He has a birth certificate, a SS number, and Identification.

You, and those defending this rediculous "question" want to shift the burden of proof on to Obama to show he has not comitted fraud. That's not how it works.


Yes it is how it works. This is a civil matter, so both sides have a burden; civil cases are decided by preponderance of the evidence.

In any case, giving someone a court date to present evidence is not shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. That's like claiming that a robber has to prove he's innocent because he has to appear in court to answer the charge.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
No, it isn't how it works. President Obama was born in Hawaii. If someone wants to claim that's a fraud, they have the burden of proof. He has presented his birth certificate.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:04 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
No, that is how it works. now you're just lying avbout how the court case is going to work. The other side has been given a date to present evidence. It's not a date for Obama to come prove he's a citizen.

And he has not presented his birth certificate. Period. If he hasn't presented it in court in answer to the claim, he hjasn't presented it at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
So you're calling me a liar, now? His birth certificate is available online, and anyone who wants to can look at it, including the court. The certificate online has been handled in the real world by several journalists and independent organizations, and the original vital data has been seen and vouched for by the head of the hawaii dpt. of health. Why do you continue to ignore that fact? The President is under no legal obligation to jump through the hoops that Orly Taitz has demanded he jump through.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:17 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Monte you're stating things that haven't been proved like they are fact with the only justification is that is how you really really really want it to be.

You clap as hard as you like but in our world it doesn't bring fairies back to life or influence the decision of courts.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
What has not been proven? They asked for a birth certificate. They got it. They lied and said it was fake. Then they said it wasn't good enough. So the head of the Hawaii Department of Health vouched for the original vital records of Obama's birth and said flat out he was a natural born citizen of the United States.

What else is there to talk about?

edit - By the way, DE, Hawaii's state laws about privacy very much count, and Obama is just as protected by them as any other person born in Hawaii. Furthermore, the officials in Hawaii are bound by those laws, no matter what. They are not allowed to release those documents.

Under what authority does a private citizen have the right to compel another citizen to relinquish their right to privacy? Especially when that citizen has produced a legal and legitimate copy of proof of citizenship?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Last edited by Monte on Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:23 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Montegue:

Who has standing to challenge the eligibility of an elected official?

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:24 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
I'm saying that the claim that setting a court date to hear the matter of the President's eligability is shifting the burden of proof to him, and that he bears no burden, are lies. This is not a criminal case. It is a well-known fact both A) that it isn't and B) that civil cases use different rules in that regard. It is also the fact that the court date set is a date for those asserting his ineligability to put forth their complainst; if it weren't there would be no court date. The courts do not set dates for random matters when there's no complaint.

As such, any claim that A) Obama is being forced to prove his eligability B) that he's the victim of misplaced Burden of Proof or C) that he's presented his birth certificate are falsehoods. They are based on a fiction that public "presentation" of documents is legally binding, and that criminal standards apply to civil matters. These are well-known facets of the legal system and it is a blatant misrepresentation to apply them to this case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
I don't know, Khross. No one has brought a legitimate court case to determine the answer to that question.

In order for us to explore that question, we need a Roe V Wade. We need a Brown Vs. Board of education. Right now, that's not Obama.

Maybe one day, in the future, some President will come along who really was born in another country, and his parents, seeing the future, will have perpetuated a fraud so he could one day be president.

That isn't what has happened right now. The President was born in Hawaii, Hawaii was a state, and that makes him a Natural Born citizen of the United States of America. That is the only question that matters right now.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Diamondeye wrote:
I'm saying that the claim that setting a court date to hear the matter of the President's eligability is shifting the burden of proof to him, and that he bears no burden, are lies.



So, you're calling me a liar, then.

Quote:
This is not a criminal case. It is a well-known fact both A) that it isn't and B) that civil cases use different rules in that regard. It is also the fact that the court date set is a date for those asserting his ineligability to put forth their complainst; if it weren't there would be no court date. The courts do not set dates for random matters when there's no complaint.


None of that is relevant. The only thing that's relevant is weather or not Obama is a citizen. Everything else is secondary. If he's a citizen, *there is no case*. Since he is a natural born citizen, there is no case, there is no question.

Quote:
As such, any claim that A) Obama is being forced to prove his eligability B) that he's the victim of misplaced Burden of Proof or C) that he's presented his birth certificate are falsehoods.


It's false that he's presented his birth certificate? It's available online. Anyone who wants can see it.

Quote:
They are based on a fiction that public "presentation" of documents is legally binding, and that criminal standards apply to civil matters. These are well-known facets of the legal system and it is a blatant misrepresentation to apply them to this case.


Civil or Criminal, he has done more to prove his status as a natural born citizen of this country than any of his predecessors have been asked to do. Did anyone demand Bush's long form birth certificate?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:30 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
What has not been proven? They asked for a birth certificate. They got it. They lied and said it was fake. Then they said it wasn't good enough. So the head of the Hawaii Department of Health vouched for the original vital records of Obama's birth and said flat out he was a natural born citizen of the United States.

What else is there to talk about?


Now you're just in circular argument. You can't claim they lied until the matter is resolved. You're just assuming what you want to be the result.

Quote:
edit - By the way, DE, Hawaii's state laws about privace very much count, and Obama is just as protected by them as any other person born in Hawaii. Furthermore, the officials in Hawaii are bound by those laws, no matter what. They are not allowed to release those documents.

Under what authority does a private citizen have the right to compel another citizen to relinquish their right to privacy? Especially when that citizen has produced a legal and legitimate copy of proof of citizenship?


They are not bound, and in fact may not obey those laws in regards to Constitutional matters. The Constitution is the Supreme LAw of the Land. No state law may inhibit it in any way, including its provisions for verifying eligability of candidates.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:05 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Phoenix
I don't think you are a liar Monty. I definately think you believe what you are saying. I have a different theory on why you are saying what you are saying.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Aegnor - which is?

DE - Is the short form birth certificate a fraud or not? It's a yes or not question. Let me answer it for you, so you don't have to waste your time. The Certificate of Live Birth is not a forgery. It has been seen, handled, and confirmed by the Hawaii Dept of Health, and several independent organizations and journalists. So, those that claimed it was a fake were either grossly misinformed or lying.


Private citizens do not just get to violate Hawaii's state law and Obama's right to privacy under that law because they don't like the form a birth certificate took. Nothing in the constitution allows for that.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:35 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
So, you're calling me a liar, then.


I did not say that. I think you're just trying to claim that in order to have an excuse to report me, rather than defend your position.

Quote:
None of that is relevant. The only thing that's relevant is weather or not Obama is a citizen. Everything else is secondary. If he's a citizen, *there is no case*. Since he is a natural born citizen, there is no case, there is no question.


That isn't how the legal system works. You can't just assert that your position is correct and claim there's no reason to go to court. Whether or not there's a case is established in court.

Quote:
It's false that he's presented his birth certificate? It's available online. Anyone who wants can see it.


Yes, it's false. Online is not in court and does not count.

Quote:
Civil or Criminal, he has done more to prove his status as a natural born citizen of this country than any of his predecessors have been asked to do. Did anyone demand Bush's long form birth certificate?


Were there any circumstances such as those around Obama's birth surrounding Bush's? No, but McCain was, and satisfied his detractors. Stop using the Bush shield. Bush was the victim of far worse frauds such as attempts to falsify poor Air National Guard service.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
DE - Is the short form birth certificate a fraud or not? It's a yes or not question. Let me answer it for you, so you don't have to waste your time. The Certificate of Live Birth is not a forgery. It has been seen, handled, and confirmed by the Hawaii Dept of Health, and several independent organizations and journalists. So, those that claimed it was a fake were either grossly misinformed or lying.


I'm not an expert in legal documents or forgery detection and neither are you, so the question and the answer are bullshit.


Quote:
Private citizens do not just get to violate Hawaii's state law and Obama's right to privacy under that law because they don't like the form a birth certificate took. Nothing in the constitution allows for that.


Yes it does. IT's the Supremacy Clause. Private citizens are not violating anything, they are asking the Federal Courts to demand the certificate, which they may do. Hawaii has no power to resist.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:37 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
If Schwarzenegger where to have run for president would he have to justify his citizenship to anyone?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
DE- Really? So, because you personally aren't an expert on forgery, then the question remains open? Do you have any evidence what so ever that the document *is* forged? Or are you trying to argue that the Hawaii Department of Health is involved in some sort of conspiracy to lie about the legitimacy of Obama's birth records?

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Uncle Fester wrote:
If Schwarzenegger where to have run for president would he have to justify his citizenship to anyone?


Actually, it would be a moot point. We know that he was not born in the United States. Just like we know that Obama *was* born in the United States.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Monte wrote:
DE- Really? So, because you personally aren't an expert on forgery, then the question remains open?


Strawman, I said that asking me, or you yourself answering, the question of the legitimacy of the Birth Certicficate is bullshit. I did not give that as a reason

Quote:
Do you have any evidence what so ever that the document *is* forged? Or are you trying to argue that the Hawaii Department of Health is involved in some sort of conspiracy to lie about the legitimacy of Obama's birth records?


Since I'm not asserting it's forged, I don't need any. I'm saying those that assert that it is must have their day in court to present evidence. Stop trying to assign this position to me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:05 am
Posts: 1111
Location: Phoenix
Monte wrote:
Aegnor - which is?


I think it would be best if I just leave it alone.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:07 pm 
Offline
Not the ranger you're looking for
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 321
Location: Here
Monte wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
If Schwarzenegger where to have run for president would he have to justify his citizenship to anyone?


Actually, it would be a moot point. We know that he was not born in the United States. Just like we know that Obama *was* born in the United States.


Obama was definitely NOT born in the United States of America. He might have been born in the Territory of Hawai'i.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:30 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
Monte wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
If Schwarzenegger where to have run for president would he have to justify his citizenship to anyone?


Actually, it would be a moot point. We know that he was not born in the United States. Just like we know that Obama *was* born in the United States.



Ahh you know it, but according to Obama you would have no legal grounding to call it into account, and that is the crux of most of the arguments here. I am damn sure Obama was born in Hawaii, but the idea that the citizens of this country can not check to see if their elected officials meet the requirements to fulfill the office, to which they are elected, is horrifying.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 396
fun fact: do a little searching on McCain's birth and you'll find there are all sort's of groups that were poised and planning an assault on his eligibility.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12 ... /58/534894


Also of note: The members of the U.S. military are held to a higher standard of proof then the man, who Commands them?

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 am 
Offline
Manchurian Mod
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 5866
Yes. They're baby killers. Obama is the bringer of Change.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 232 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group