How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


175 posted 11-26-2008 09:51 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm sorry, Jim, I tried, I really tried, but I have to comment on:

2. He's a US citizen.

Maybe he is. That's not the question, though. The question raised by the lawsuits is whether he is a natural born citizen. There is a difference, and being a natural born citizen is a requirement of the Constitution to hold the Office of President. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. That's not something that can just be taken on 'faith'. Hawaii, at the time of his birth, allowed the registration of live birth for foreign born children of parents who previously and subsequently, within one year of the child's birth, made their residence in Hawaii. His original long form birth certificate, that lists the hospital name, location, and physician signature (that he has had sealed) has to be produced and verified to answer the question of where he was born. Being a U.S. citizen isn't sufficient.
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama


Add to that, he also had Kenyan citizenship, which he admits to, stating that it automatically lapsed at age 18, and most likely Indonesian citizenship, where he went to school as a child, which you couldn't do without being an Indonesian citizen. If he had an Indonesian passport that he renewed after the age of 18, that would be tantamount to renouncing his U.S. citizenship because Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. In one of his books he states that he traveled to Indonesia and then to Pakistan in 1981 when he was 20. He most likely had to have renewed his Indonesian passport because Pakistan was under Martial Law at the time and those with U.S. passports were not allowed to enter Pakistan. This is a question that could be resolved by viewing his school application records (that he has had sealed)after he came to the U.S. Did he claim Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship on those applications? Did he receive aid as a forgeign student?

Also, a Freedom of Information search was done for any U.S. passports applied for by Barack Obama, and Barry Soetoro (his other name when he lived in Indonesia with his mother and step-father), and the only record of his having a U.S. passport was when he received his diplomatic passport when he bacame a Senator.

He could certainly be someone who has 'divided national loyalties', given his international background.

There are many unanswered questions that many people who care about the rule of law and the Constitution do not consider nonsense.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


176 posted 11-27-2008 12:34 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I wonder what poeple think of the amount of [almost all] of Obama's advisers are Clinton administration.  Sounds a bit corrupt to me.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


177 posted 11-27-2008 08:02 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
He could certainly be someone who has 'divided national loyalties', given his international background.

That might be a very good thing.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


178 posted 11-27-2008 09:25 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

His appointments have brought a bit of relief to some in conservative circles, Juju, because they have experience and are also a bit more centrist than Obama's record.

Our Founders disagree, Moonbeam. That's what they were attempting to prevent when requiring natural born status as one of the qualifications to hold the Office of President.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


179 posted 11-27-2008 10:19 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Your founders are probably out of touch with the way the world has developed!  And in any event I never have been able to see why someone born in Canada and moved over the border to the US aged 2 would be any less loyal to the US than someone born in the US and moved over the border to Canada aged 2.

So they were probably wrong too.

Plus like I say today's world isn't the same as your founders' much more parochial world.  A bit of multiculturalism in a president would be no bad thing in my view.    

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


180 posted 11-27-2008 10:49 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It doesn't matter what you think, Moonbeam. It's a requirement under our Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our form of government, and isn't something that one can pick and choose an item to obey. Until an Amendment regarding the natural born status requirement is adopted, the requirement stands.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


181 posted 11-27-2008 11:11 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
It doesn't matter what you think, Moonbeam.

Of course it matters what I/we/society thinks Denise!

That's why we have discussions like this, because it matters.  That's the way the technological revolution is leading us - to the desirable goal of people like you and me being able to express an opinion instantly and effectively.  Or maybe you don't believe in democracy?
quote:
It's a requirement under our Constitution.

It was a requirement by the law of the middle ages for women to be vassal to their husbands, but it didn't make it right for later ages.  
quote:
The Constitution is the foundation of our form of government, and isn't something that one can pick and choose an item to obey.

Was I advocating disobeying it?  

I thought I merely questioned whether or not it was still relevant to today or even desirable.  
quote:
Until an Amendment regarding the natural born status requirement is adopted, the requirement stands.

You don't say.  Works the same as most laws I suppose.  

None of what you said addresses the point that I made about the logic of where babies are born relative to their loyalty to the country.

But then perhaps you think it's perfectly ok to have an illogical Constitution?

Or perhaps it's not up to the lowly people of the US to raise concerns?  It has to be some high up politician?  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


182 posted 11-28-2008 11:51 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It doesn't matter that you think the Constitution may be outdated and therefore irrlevant for today or illogical.

There is a means in place to address various issues in the Constitution. It's called the Amendment process where a proposed Amendment has to be ratified by the lowly residents of the individual States. We can't just decide that we don't agree with something and disregard it at will, or throw out the charge that it might be outdated, as if that is a sufficient argument to those who raise concerns about its possible violation. If enough people think it is something that should be considered for change, then they can start the process.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


183 posted 11-28-2008 12:24 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Well said Denise.

Naturally the law is the law and has to be adhered to until it's changed.  All I was saying, in my quiet and subdued way   , is that I feel that it is outdated and ought to be reconsidered.  Perhaps this controversy over Obama will make other people think about the logic of it too.

Umm, do you think it's a good law Denise?  I would be really interested in hearing your views about the point I made about babies born just the wrong side of the border.  Or anybody else's for that matter?  Maybe I'm missing something here (apart from a functional brain I mean ).

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


184 posted 11-28-2008 03:17 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Moonbeam,

           The whole notion of Constitutions tends to get a bit irrational.  I'm not as touchy as Denise about ours, though I'm very fond of the thing, and really quite protective.  I thought that the attitude was peculiarly American on my part until I heard some English folk speak about the advantages of the largely unwritten English Constitution.  The normally crusty BBC newsreaders got almost teary- eyed with nostalgia and sentiment as they interviewed person after person about the virtues of a Constitution that was beyond the reach of tinkering and corruption and of its wonderful ideal nature.  They practically had me weeping as well.  They weren't nearly as happy with our duller and more corruptible constitution.  I think they were hoping that eventually we would see the light.

     My understanding is that the original material made its way into the U.S. Constitution as a way of keeping Alexander Hamilton out of the running for the Presidency — I think he was born in Jamaica.  Lots of potentially great candidates have been excluded since, whatever the reason.  Being proud or ashamed of the custom hasn't served to overcome inertia since; one would expect that as a country we simply don't find the distinction all that difficult to tolerate; and by this point it's become a custom.  If anybody actually took Denise's point of view seriously, there would probably be a lot of fuss raised, and there might be a serious and active court battle.  I'm sure Denise takes her point of view very seriously, as well she should, but I'd be surprised if she thought that she was at the head of a massive groundswell of public opinion that thought she was absolutely correct.  

     Perhaps she does, of course, but I suspect not; she simply find very little to like about Senator Obama, and she wants others to know it and to understand she is serious in her disagreement with almost everything he stands for.

     If I'm misrepresenting you in any way, Denise, I'd appreciate a correction here.  Moonbeam, if I'm missing anything about what you're saying here, I'd appreciate a correction from your side as well.  I learn a lot from being corrected.  Thoughts from anybody?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


185 posted 11-28-2008 03:57 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Yes Bob, the English Establishment types really can get very techy if you threaten to tamper with their pillars - "it's simply not cricket, what!"

On the point in question though, if you are right, the birth of that particular provision doesn't sound like a very honourable conception, and its subsequent life seems to have promoted irrational inequity.  

But that aside, I guess what I was trying to establish with Denise was whether she truly feels that this is a logical and fair element of the Constitution that should be upheld on a principled stand (and if so what that logic is), or whether she is simply advocating the possible (technical) breach of that part of the Constitution as a means to get rid of Obama because she objects to him in other areas.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


186 posted 11-28-2008 04:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Perhaps this controversy will, in the future, require all candidates to present their original birth certificates before being accepted as a candidate, instead of just signing a statement of affirmation that they are eligible, Moonbeam.

I think the natural born requirement is something that could come up for debate as to the pros and cons of maintaining or amending the current requirement. I personally don't know where I would come down on the issue until I heard all the arguments.

I do know that I would be oppossed to anyone defrauding their way into Office under the current laws, and I believe that any candidate's documents should be verified. I see nothing wrong with such a requirement.

You can look back in the archives, Bob, if you want a sense of my view on adhering to the Constitution and its Amendements.

There are several lawsuits currently pending. I don't see that a groundswell of public support necessarily determines whether one is correct or not.

Obama has made at least one statement in the past that indicates his view that the Constitution is deficient is some matters. He was particulary speaking of the Civil Rights issue and how he was disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to provide for redistribution of wealth equity in regard to that issue. He seemed to believe that despite their understanding of the Constitution, they should have acted with compassion and provided it anyway.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


187 posted 11-28-2008 04:45 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
Obama has made at least one statement in the past that indicates his view that the Constitution is deficient is some matters. He was particulary speaking of the Civil Rights issue and how he was disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to provide for redistribution of wealth equity in regard to that issue. He seemed to believe that despite their understanding of the Constitution, they should have acted with compassion and provided it anyway.

This is good, yes Denise?

And thanks for explaining your position on the other points.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


188 posted 11-28-2008 05:33 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Oh aargh.  Denise, here's a follow up on court decisions relating to Obama's citizenship from your same source.  If the link doesn't work, it says the Supreme Court declined to pursue one such case.  A second pending case involves Berg, he of the non-existent tape. It just doesn't wash.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80072

On dual citizenship:  Don't have Obama facts in hand, but it seems likely Obama might have had dual citizenship through his father.  My wife has dual citizenship available since her father was an Irish citizen, and she was born in the US. I don't think she has divided loyalties, even though she roots for Notre Dame.

Someone TV used an Occam's Razor example on TV the other night:  "If you hear hoofbeats, don't expect zebras."

To follow the Obama conspiracy theorists, one would have to assume, as stated by others, that Obama has fooled every known US Security Agency and the Congress and more than half of all the American's voting in the election.

Now, it's possible, but it's not likely unless one gets caught up in grand conspiracy theories.  People do get caught up in them, everything from Bigfoot, Alien landings at Area 51, to the "impossibility" of Oswald acting alone, and they "believe" with all their hearts that they are "right."  Logic and facts don't seem to make much difference, and this I find sad.

As suggested by others before, no matter how "secretive" and "uncooperative" Obama might be thought to be, he's been vetted and cleared by every responsible Federal agency or institution to date.  

Slightly more than half of the electorate believes Obama was the best choice for President.  Slightly less than half the electorate doesn't.  But here's a number I can't find:  What percentage of the electorate believes Obama is a Muslim closet socialist non-citizen with divided loyalties and a mysterious past?  I'm guessing it's tiny, close to the numbers of true believers in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

If people don't like Obama and his platform, that's fine.  It's politics.  There is always disagreement.  THIS IS GOOD!

Making up stuff is not good.  It hurts people, both the deluded and the delusional.

Best, Jimbeaux
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


189 posted 11-28-2008 06:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You're welcome, Moonbeam.

And no, I don't think it's good if he believes that it is appropriate to bypass the Constitution via the Supreme court, instead of going through the Amendment process to adress his concerns.

I'm not making things up, Jim. And I'm not saying he is or isn't a natural born citizen. I just believe that he should be open and above board about his origins and history, that's all. I find it disturbing that he doesn't seem to be, and that he doesn't seem to think that the citizens have a right to know. As I said before, we all know more about Sarah Palin than we know about him. Something is wrong with that picture, in my opinion.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


190 posted 11-28-2008 11:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And no, I don't think it's good if he believes that it is appropriate to bypass the Constitution via the Supreme court, instead of going through the Amendment process to adress his concerns.

That's essentially an oxymoron, Denise. You can't bypass the Constitution via the Supreme Court because they are the only ones with the authority to interpret what the Constitution means.

That's in the Constitution, by the way.


moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


191 posted 11-29-2008 04:07 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Thanks Denise and Ron. Umm, I think I need to do a little more research on this.  And there was I thinking that the British system was complex.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


192 posted 11-29-2008 08:46 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

"As suggested by others before, no matter how "secretive" and "uncooperative" Obama might be thought to be, he's been vetted and cleared by every responsible Federal agency or institution to date."

Is that also something that should be taken on faith, Jim? I'd love to see the results of all that vetting, if it actually happened.

You're right, Ron. I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that he gave me the impression that he thought they should have departed from the constraints found in the Constitution, and that he would have supported such a departure when he said:

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted...".

That view doesn't fill me with confidence that he respects the Constitution as it was written and amended.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


193 posted 11-29-2008 09:02 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
That view doesn't fill me with confidence that he respects the Constitution as it was written and amended.

But perhaps that's the whole point Denise, perhaps he DOES have reservations about parts of your Constitution.  Isn't it natural and healthy to question something you feel is illogical until either someone explain the flaws in your thinking or else changes are made?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


194 posted 11-29-2008 09:42 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I'd love to see the results of all that vetting,


Err.. You have, unless you’ve been on Mars, the result was that Obama was allowed to contest, and win, the election for the Office of President of the USA.

The enormity of the conspiracy required to put an ineligible candidate in the White House is so mind boggling as to be virtually impossible. Every person who knew he was ineligible, or was responsible for confirming his eligibility, would have to be complicit in the conspiracy. That includes the current President, the Democratic party, the Republican opposition, the CIA, the FBI and every investigative reporter who’s covered the election not to mention every doctor, nurse, family member and friend that was around at his birth who‘d have to keep the details secret.

Of course that’s not impossible, everyone listed above and a majority of voters might know he’s technically ineligible and believe that that technicality doesn’t matter, which brings us nicely to the Constitution.

quote:
That view doesn't fill me with confidence that he respects the Constitution as it was written and amended.


I’ve highlighted the important part of your statement, it shows that the Constitution has changed, that at some point someone questioned the suitability of it and convinced enough people to agree to an amendment. Were the people who questioned the Constitution showing a lack of respect for the Constitution? Where those who supported and pushed for an amendment showing a lack of respect, or were they simply voicing their support and agreement that a change was required?

If the Constitution says that a candidate is ineligible because of X, Y or Z and everyone ignores it because they don’t think it matters and elects that candidate anyway are they showing a lack of respect for the Constitution or are they simply voicing their support and agreement that a change is required?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


195 posted 11-29-2008 02:45 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

They would be showing a a lack of respect and an utter disregard for it, Grinch.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


196 posted 11-29-2008 03:12 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


If there’s no respect for it, if everyone disregards it, then what use is it and why would you not want to change it?

When it gets to that point it becomes like the law that says you can’t eat ice-cream in Willow County on a Tuesday - It doesn’t represent reality or the will of the people, it simply acts to contradict it.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


197 posted 11-29-2008 04:23 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You're assuming that everyone disregards it, Grinch. There are those who do respect it, and the process for making changes.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


198 posted 11-29-2008 04:41 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

On dual citizenship:

My two children are dual citizens (Korea and the US). They have to be.

Neither Korea nor the US will grant visas to their own citizens. If my children want to enter the US, they have to have a US passport; if they want to reenter Korea, they have to have a Korean passport.

At first I thought it was kind of cool, James Bondish in a way, but it doesn't work like that. They have to have both passports at all times.

Next week, a friend of mine--who is an American from Minnesota--is going to Japan. His brother is marrying a Japanese national.

I used to work with a Canadian who is married to one of those strange British guys. I now work with a Filipina who is married to a Korean national.

Oh yeah, my friend, the xenophobic one from the Nobel prize letter in Philosophy 101 can speak both French and Spanish, is married to a Korean national. So am I.

He spent part of his childhood in Senegal.

At least to me, this provision in the constitution is an anachronism. Many conservatives thought so too when Ah-nold was a rising star.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


199 posted 11-29-2008 04:45 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Denise,

For your conspiracy theory to make any sense at all the people involved must have disregarded the Constitution:

That includes the current President, the Democratic party, the Republican opposition, the CIA, the FBI and every investigative reporter who’s covered the election not to mention every doctor, nurse, family member and friend that was around at his birth who‘d have to keep the details secret.

If you’re right and Obama is ineligible how much respect have the above people shown by ignoring the Constitution?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Not a Neener Neener Neener Post.   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors