Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why don't YOU go ahead and rebut THOSE posts, Doug?> As I just said, and as you'd realize if you were debating honestly, post 17 didn't address the article in question. All post 7 did was try to claim the difference between "certificate" and "certification" was semantics. But if you actually read Mr McCarthy's article, you'll find he isn't making such a simplistic argument. The point he raises is that there's typically a lot more information stored by a State than what is contained on the Certificate of Live Birth, and that information has not been released.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << This is typical of how liberals debate a conservative. >> We're debating wingnuts here. Get the facts straight!
Originally Posted By Mr X Semantics. They both addressed the ridiculous "article" that YOU provided, Doug in support of the birther argument.
Originally Posted By Mr X And talk about dishonest. When asked, you claimed both of those posts as "non-responsive" even though they were in response to YOU and YOUR source that you offered up when you first chimed in here. Completely responsive Doug, to YOU and your claims.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The point he raises is that there's typically a lot more information stored by a State than what is contained on the Certificate of Live Birth, and that information has not been released. >> Notice the key qualifying word here -- "typically." What the McCarthy article continues to insinuate -- facts that have been exposed ages ago -- is that a Hawaii certification of live birth reproduces 100% of the information in the official state archives. Continuing to suggest otherwise by somehow showing that other states act differently or other systems exist throughout the country is misleading and to be blunt, dishonest. If you like your political commentary to be dishonest, by all means continue to worship Mr. McCarthy and his drivel.
Originally Posted By Mr X The entire argument is stupid if you look at the Constitution rationally and consider the intent. Barack Obama is an American because his mother was an American, plain and simple. The intention of the Constitution was clearly to specify that NON-AMERICANS be disqualified from holding the office of President of the United States. Is anyone trying to make the argument that Ann Dunham was NOT an American citizen? If not, then the argument is ridiculous on the face of it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***NON-AMERICANS*** I should specify, non-American by birth. Naturalized citizens are disqualified, folks who were born American are not.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 " The point he raises is that there's typically a lot more information stored by a State than what is contained on the Certificate of Live Birth, and that information has not been released." In post #35 I pasted two links. The first is to a government website outlining the fact that even if he had been born overseas, the fact that his mother was a US citizen and had lived the majority of her life in the US, Barack Obama would still be a US Citizen. You can also check out the Factcheck link I added to the same post. It goes into a lot of detail. Here is another link for you; this one even includes supreme court decisions on various citizenship issues <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...lity_law</a> Face it, you do not want to believe that Obama is legitimately the president. If there were truly rational doubts about his citizenship it would have been brought up by 1) the FEC before or during the election or 2) the congress and/or the supreme court any time between the election and the inauguration. You keep referring to your article, which is an opinion piece not a factual news story by the way. Well, I have included a few sources for that are based on actual laws. Have fun.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sigh. Neither I nor the article I linked to claimed that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, or is not qualified to be President. I've stated on at least one occasion that I believe Mr Obama is a US citizen, and that arguing otherwise is stupid. That's not the argument here. So far, no posts here have refuted the "patently absurd" arguments raised in the article I linked to.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That's not the argument here.*** Then there's no argument. There's no constitutional requirement for the Presidential candidates to disclose, well, ANYTHING of a personal nature aside from proving their citizenship (I read nothing in the Constitution about school records, did I miss something?).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Fellow travelers? Really? I mean, really? 1957 called. It wants it's terminology back. "And yet their fellow travelers are in power, and trying to ruin our economy. And other fellow travelers like you are cheering them on and carrying their water by distorting and denigrating the positions of conservatives." This is interesting. According to Doug, Obama and any number of us--your basic garden-variety, ordinary, mainstream American liberals--are "fellow travelers" with communists. But that's not denigrating or a distortion, because Doug always says he never does that. And they "want to ruin the American economy.". Not that they have a different idea on how to make it work. Oh no. They want to ruin it. But that's not denigrating or a distortion. Of course , it is both.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There's no constitutional requirement for the Presidential candidates to disclose, well, ANYTHING of a personal nature aside from proving their citizenship (I read nothing in the Constitution about school records, did I miss something?).> We're not talking about a matter of law. People have the right to ask questions, and express doubts, even if they're is no obligation on anyone's point to answer them. If the liberal media thinks a conservative isn't being forthcoming enough, they'll continue pestering and hounding, and they'll speculate on reasons why the conservative isn't answering. If you were honest, you'd admit that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But that's not denigrating or a distortion, because Doug always says he never does that.> When have I ever said I don't do that? I've admitted several times I'm willing to fight fire with fire. That post was a response to someone throwing crap, so I flung it back.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You have claimed in the past that you don't denigrate and distort. Awfully convenient to claim it was just flinging crap back when called on it. But at least you admit it was crap. I suppose that's progress.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Again, ecdc, please actually explain why Mr McCarthy's article was patently absurd.>> Again, Doug, please actually explain why Bush and his Republican Congress could not reverse the "damage" done prior to 1995, during their six years of Executive and Legislative control. You keep stating that the Dems are responsible for this mess, yet you offer no evidence as to why Bush and the GOP led Congress couldn't "fix" it during the six years they were in control. SIX YEARS. If you actually want other posters here to believe your statements, you need to back them up with facts. Simply telling us that you've provided them before and don't want to provide them again is a copout. I don't remember anyone asking you this specific question about the six years of Bush-GOP control, so I doubt you've given an answer.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I agree with with gadzuux in post 63. Succinct and to the point. As for the rest of this thread, ol' Doug has gone back on his word yet again and come back to be obtuse and generally wreak havoc with a thread. He has absolutely no desire to participate in any kind of real debate, he just wants to get people riled up and call him names, and he's generally succeeded. He now feels good about himself, because in order to reach his goals, he has to set them real low. Good for you, Doug.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You have claimed in the past that you don't denigrate and distort.> No, I haven't. What I've said is that you and other liberals here constantly do it. <But at least you admit it was crap. I suppose that's progress.> How is that progress? I've always been honest. It's you who won't ever admit to flinging crap, even though you constantly do it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If you were honest, you'd admit that.*** If YOU were honest, you'd admit that the media isn't "liberal" at all, but rather corporate driven profit machines that will swing in any direction the money happens to be blowing at the time. You think they were so very liberal when they lambasted Blagojevich (I did thoroughly enjoy that though)? Or perhaps you think they were acting as liberals when they gave John Ensign a pass on his and his parents' hush money scheme to his mistress. Give it a rest already.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't remember anyone asking you this specific question about the six years of Bush-GOP control, so I doubt you've given an answer.> Well, I remember answering it. So either go look or let it go.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "How is that progress? I've always been honest." Just stop. That's a lie right there. You have absolutely no honest intentions by re-inserting yourself in threads here. None.
