The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:28 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
http://www.thefoxnation.com/birthers/20 ... ntry-video

In his home country of Kenya


I love when they feed the crazies.

_________________
"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 Apr 05, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Take the whole "birther" thing out of it, and it is very troubling that she/they consider Kenya to be his "home country".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:52 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Anyone still have the beating dead horse smiley?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 2:04 pm 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

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

The problem is that it's not a dead horse. Regardless of where he was born or when (and I really have little if any reason to believe he was not born in Hawaii), Obama's legal response to this situation has created a few horrendous precedents.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:16 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
As we have discussed over and over again, hense the call for dead horse.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Khross wrote:
Rorinthas:

The problem is that it's not a dead horse. Regardless of where he was born or when (and I really have little if any reason to believe he was not born in Hawaii), Obama's legal response to this situation has created a few horrendous precedents.


To be perfectly honest, this is the courts' fault, not Obama's. Obama and/or his lawyer's number one priority is to get the case dismissed with a minimum of time and expense. If you can get a summary dismissal by claiming the plaintiff has no standing, you'd be an idiot not to go for it. Why should you expect Obama to voluntarily spend time bogged down in court, deliberately handicapping his own trial defense?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:43 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
Khross wrote:
Rorinthas:

The problem is that it's not a dead horse. Regardless of where he was born or when (and I really have little if any reason to believe he was not born in Hawaii), Obama's legal response to this situation has created a few horrendous precedents.


To be perfectly honest, this is the courts' fault, not Obama's. Obama and/or his lawyer's number one priority is to get the case dismissed with a minimum of time and expense. If you can get a summary dismissal by claiming the plaintiff has no standing, you'd be an idiot not to go for it. Why should you expect Obama to voluntarily spend time bogged down in court, deliberately handicapping his own trial defense?


Fine and dandy if infact President Obama was acting as a private citizen. However, he isn't. The issue isn't about one specific administration or office holder, it is about establishing legal precedent surrounding the interpretation of a document that all presidents must take an oath to uphold.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Except anyone, even a private citizen, can establish Constitutional precedent in a trial. None of them are under any obligation to structure their defense in order to preserve tenets of the Constitution. That's the courts' job. You can motion that the case be dismissed for any crazy reason you can think of. It's up to the court to affirm or deny as appropriate. Why should Obama be different? He wasn't even President when that issue was decided in the courts, so you can't even use that as a reason.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
He was bound by his senatorial oath:

Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
He's not violating the Constitution by making a motion in a court of law. In fact by doing so he's actually asking the court if his position is legal and Constitutional. They're the ones who affirmed it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:59 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Your assumption that only the courts are supposed to make determinations about the Constitution is the flaw in your argument.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
It is only the courts that get to make such determinations, because it is the same courts that would try people for violations of the Constitution. Since they're the only ones with the authority to actually punish anyone for violating the Constitution, their determination is the only one that matters.

Sure, you can feel free not to vote for Obama because he made that motion. But he's not violating the Constitution, or at least not doing so in any way that matters in the real world.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 11:34 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
It is only the courts that get to make such determinations, because it is the same courts that would try people for violations of the Constitution. Since they're the only ones with the authority to actually punish anyone for violating the Constitution, their determination is the only one that matters.


Bare assertion. What is the purpose of the oath if the oath isn't relevant to anything?

Quote:
Sure, you can feel free not to vote for Obama because he made that motion. But he's not violating the Constitution, or at least not doing so in any way that matters in the real world.


Sometimes you just say **** without thinking it through, don't you.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:27 am 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
So the First Lady is a Birther?

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:35 pm
Posts: 396
or knows the truth. (Tinfoil)

_________________
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: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Rynar wrote:
Bare assertion. What is the purpose of the oath if the oath isn't relevant to anything?


The oath has whatever meaning the courts say it has. That's just how it works. Any promise is just meaningless words until someone with authority decides to hold you to them. if you want to hold him to a different standard and not vote for him, then that's your choice. But you can't say he violated the Constitution, when the courts, whose job it is to police this, say he hasn't.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:04 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Given that the courts have contradicted themselves multiple times, holding them as the standard as to what the Constitution says (instead of say - reading it) is illogical.

_________________
"...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: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:37 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Xequecal wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Bare assertion. What is the purpose of the oath if the oath isn't relevant to anything?


The oath has whatever meaning the courts say it has. That's just how it works. Any promise is just meaningless words until someone with authority decides to hold you to them. if you want to hold him to a different standard and not vote for him, then that's your choice. But you can't say he violated the Constitution, when the courts, whose job it is to police this, say he hasn't.



Appeal to authority. No. It doesn't. Do you have any arguments not rooted in logical fallacy to make?

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:48 am 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Wikipedia wrote:
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:
be a natural born citizen of the United States;[8]
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
A person who meets the above qualifications is still disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:
Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no eligible person can be elected president more than twice. The Twenty-second Amendment also specifies that if any eligible person who serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once. Scholars disagree whether anyone no longer eligible to be elected president could be elected vice president, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.[9]
Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[10]
Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution prohibits an otherwise eligible person from becoming president if that person swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States. However, the Congress, by a two-thirds vote of each house, can remove the disqualification.


The ***** says 14-16 seconds into this video that he went to his home country of Kenya... not even "the motherland" of Africa....

[youtube]dBJihJBePcs[/youtube]

I do not know when the initial video was filmed... but she straight outed him in this video.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:23 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Bare assertion. What is the purpose of the oath if the oath isn't relevant to anything?


The oath has whatever meaning the courts say it has. That's just how it works. Any promise is just meaningless words until someone with authority decides to hold you to them. if you want to hold him to a different standard and not vote for him, then that's your choice. But you can't say he violated the Constitution, when the courts, whose job it is to police this, say he hasn't.


Appeal to authority. No. It doesn't. Do you have any arguments not rooted in logical fallacy to make?


He's not appealing to authority. The question of whether someone has violated a legal obligation or not is decided by the courts. Someone else's assertion that "He has, regardless fo what the courts say" is an appeal to their own authority of which they have none.

It's just like if I tell my daughter "You're not allowed to go 4-wheeling because I think it's too unsafe". It's too unsafe because the threshold of acceptable safety in my household is decided by me (and my wife). Her argument that "but it is safe" is an appeal to her own authority - which doesn't exist.

It is not an Appeal to Authority to rely on authority to answer a question whose factual nature is determined by authority.

_________________
"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: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:24 am 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
No DE, truth is not determined by authority - it is determined by what is.

_________________
"...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: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:41 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Elmarnieh wrote:
No DE, truth is not determined by authority - it is determined by what is.


When "what is" is a question whose answer is determined by authority those things are one and the same.

When speaking of a question of observable fact i.e. How much energy does it take to accelerate a given mass by a given amount, no the answer is not determined by authority, although we can consult an authority to perform the appropriate observations for us.

However political matters nad questions of guilt or innocence are only questions of observeable fact in the sense that we can observe that a person did or did not perform a given action. The legal status of that action as it relates to law is determined by an authority: a judge, a magistrate, a jury, etc.

If, for example, you go shoot someone and are charged with murder and a jury finds you not guilty, then you did not commit murder. Period. It would be an appeal to authority to say you did not kill anyone because the jury found you not guilty. It would NOT be an appeal to autority to say you are not a murderer because you were found not guilty. The "what is" of you being a murderer is determiend by their verdict.

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


Last edited by Diamondeye on Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
When that authority was usurped, and is illigitimate, they are not.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:20 pm 
Offline
Doom Patrol
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 1145
Location: The subtropics
Found this video yesterday and yall beat me to it.

/popcorn

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:28 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Rynar wrote:
When that authority was usurped, and is illigitimate, they are not.


Usurped according to who?

_________________
"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  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 216 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