Sorry for posting this here, but if you would...

[DDL]

In essence, there's absolutely no logical framework to put this whole thing into, if we consider the possibility that he's not american. It either suggests that he's got his own craaaazy agenda that absolutely required HIM to be president, the birth status was a problem, and thus he has masterfully fooled absolutely fucking everyone except the tinfoil hat brigade, OR, that the entirety of the democrat party of the united states has their own craaaazy agenda that absolutely required HIM to be president, the birth status was a problem, and thus THEY have masterfully fooled absolutely fucking everyone except the tinfoil hat brigade.

In other words, if we are to assume he IS Kenyan, then there pretty much HAS to be a secret craaaaazy agenda that absolutely requires a half-black kenyan as president of the US. Which would be a fucking retarded secret agenda, if it existed. Which it doesn't.

It's more or less just symptomatic of crazy people who hate the president, either because they're libertarians, republicans, crazy, or just big ol' racists (nb: Neveos, I am totally not calling you a big ol' racist, I just want to make that absolutely clear). They don't want him in power, so they will use any and all weapons at their disposal (no matter how stupid such weapons may be) to try and shake him out of office.

It's only really because he's quite a...polarising president, rather than because of basic racism. He's not a generic white harvard-educated christian male aged around 50 with a nuclear family and a dog.

He's....a half-black harvard-educated christian male aged around 50 with a nuclear family and a dog.

Ok, yeah the racism bit probably matters quite a lot, then.


Also, bear in mind that politics in the US can be really, really fucking dirty. It's far less about "here are my policies", and far more about "here is why my opponent is a cat-raping douchebag of the highest order". Traditionally that was far more the republican's forte, but now even the democrats are weighing in. So really: shit be flying aaallll over the place, in the hope that some of it sticks.

[DaveW]

That's not... are you willfully misunderstand me here? The two situations aren't the same. How can you think they are?

Yes, I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you seem to think I said something I didn't. Frankly this is getting confusing and I did clarify, but I'll say it again:

I'm not talking about the legality of the election. I'm not debating that or saying you're wrong.


Think back to 2008 - Obama has not publically provided any proof of his citizenship, just like most candidates don't (because there's no point) - there is no reason or evidence to suggest he is not American any more than another candidate. Except he's Black.

So for the sake of argument, let's say the birth certificate is fake. There is still no proof Obama is not American, there is only a lack of proof that he is.

My point: conspiracy theorists saying Obama is specifically Kenyan or Muslim have absolutely no evidence as such. They also have no evidence he isn't American. And in the real world, of course, there is plenty of proof he is.

I am not talking about the burden of proof in elections, that has no relevance at all.

[DDL]

I demand he prove that he's not genetically female! And also a horse!

I will not rest until he provides me with his fully sequenced and annotated genome!

IMPEACH THE SHEHORSE PRETENDER

[Jaedar]

I demand he prove that he's not genetically female! And also a horse!

I will not rest until he provides me with his fully sequenced and annotated genome!

IMPEACH THE SHEHORSE PRETENDER

Where in the constitution does it say a horse cannot be president? You wacky specieists and your conspiracies.

[Neveos]

Sorry, I'm not ignoring this, I just forgot about it. I haven't read anything yet. Big things going down in the nation right now with the Dark Knight massacre and the small arms treaty for international gun restrictions looming.

Alright, so the primary counter argument about the BC scandal is this, "So what?" reaction, and people actually give the same reaction to indications that Obama is a cocaine using closet homosexual Muslim. "So what?" I personally do not care about any of those things about any particular human being, and I personally wouldn't want a president to have those traits, but the proper reaction isn't "So what if they are true?"

The problem is the implications of those allegations being true, and they are lied about/ covered up/ the result of corruption/ the result of propaganda. It's a bombshell for a much bigger picture if it is true. The reinforcing feature If you go to the end of Arpaio's video, for instance, when they begin taking questions, listen to the first journalist who gets to ask a question.

Oh, if you guys haven't seen this CGI movie, it's really moving: http://vimeo.com/44583147

[AEmer]

@ Dave
Actually, obama did provide proof of his citizenship in 2008; he submitted his short form birth certificate to a source site on the internet.
Congress also felt he had proven that he was elligible when they decided to swear him in.

My point is, there doesn't have to be any proof against obama to deny him the ability to become president of the united states, because contrary to criminal proceedings, this isn't a crime:The certification of eligibility is an electional proceeding.

An example; A person who claims to be a US citizen, but who has no public record and whom noone seems to have known of at the time of birth cannot possibly become president, because that would render this specific law toothless: All you'd need to do would be to assume a false identity. It should also be noted that very few people have standing to sue over inelligibility, and ultimately, Congress bear the responsibility for the legality of the swearing in of the president.

And that's why it matters. If the birth certificate was a forgery, then the state of hawaii's recordholder would have comitted purgory, and obama would no longer be able to prove his eligibility, at which he should be impeached: Not because he did something wrong (a crime) but because he can no longer prove something is right (that he is eligible).

@ DDL

It's a good thing you don't have standing to sue the president for being ineligible

[DaveW]

@ Dave
Actually, obama did provide proof of his citizenship in 2008; he submitted his short form birth certificate to a source site on the internet.
Congress also felt he had proven that he was elligible when they decided to swear him in.

My point is, there doesn't have to be any proof against obama to deny him the ability to become president of the united states, because contrary to criminal proceedings, this isn't a crime:The certification of eligibility is an electional proceeding.

An example; A person who claims to be a US citizen, but who has no public record and whom noone seems to have known of at the time of birth cannot possibly become president, because that would render this specific law toothless: All you'd need to do would be to assume a false identity. It should also be noted that very few people have standing to sue over inelligibility, and ultimately, Congress bear the responsibility for the legality of the swearing in of the president.

And that's why it matters. If the birth certificate was a forgery, then the state of hawaii's recordholder would have comitted purgory, and obama would no longer be able to prove his eligibility, at which he should be impeached: Not because he did something wrong (a crime) but because he can no longer prove something is right (that he is eligible).

I thought the short-form was after the 2008 election? Regardless, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. Clearly it would matter if the Birth Certificate is a forgery - I'm not disagreeing with that - what I'm saying is that even if it is, conspiracy theorists still have no evidence he specifically isn't American.

I am not(!!!!) talking about the legality of the election.

Alright, so the primary counter argument about the BC scandal is this, "So what?" reaction, and people actually give the same reaction to indications that Obama is a cocaine using closet homosexual Muslim. "So what?" I personally do not care about any of those things about any particular human being, and I personally wouldn't want a president to have those traits, but the proper reaction isn't "So what if they are true?"

The problem is the implications of those allegations being true, and they are lied about/ covered up/ the result of corruption/ the result of propaganda. It's a bombshell for a much bigger picture if it is true. The reinforcing feature If you go to the end of Arpaio's video, for instance, when they begin taking questions, listen to the first journalist who gets to ask a question.

Actually the primary counter argument about the 'BC scandal' is that it isn't a scandal, because the Birth Certificate is real. The scandal is entirely fabricated by a few disingenuous people on the right - the same goes for the other lies about him (cocaine/homosexual/muslim). If they were true then the fact he lied about those things would be important, but they're not, so it isn't.

I get that elections are nasty, especially from the Republicans, and the cocaine use and homosexual comments are par for the course at the moment. But the complete lack of evidence or even reason to think Obama isn't American or is Kenyan or Muslim? To me, I'm not sure what else that comes down to other than Racism.

(I'm not calling you a racist, btw, I'm saying you've been misled by racists)

[Neveos]

well, that's funny because that is entirely invalid conjecture and thus it is more likely you are being misled by anti-white racists

[DaveW]

well, that's funny because that is entirely invalid conjecture and thus it is more likely you are being misled by anti-white racists

How so?

Do you have any proof that Obama isn't American?

[AEmer]

@Dave
I'll try again. This whole thing is about whether the president is actually allowed to be the president. Why would you be interested in where he was born if it was not for the express purpose of determining this?

[DaveW]

@Dave
I'll try again. This whole thing is about whether the president is actually allowed to be the president. Why would you be interested in where he was born if it was not for the express purpose of determining this?

Again - I am not disagreeing with this! Seriously, you keep either misreading or misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Assuming the birth certificate is a forgery - the most conspiracy theorists can say is that he is not eligible to be president because he can't prove he is American.

But that is NOT what they say - they say he isn't american. Some go further and say he is specifically Kenyan. The birth certificate being forged does not provide evidence for this allegation - only the allegation that he is not allowed to be president.

[Neveos]

Look, it isn't that Barack Obama is NOT American. He may very well be American. It is that he is not eligible for not qualifying as a natural born citizen. A status only possessed by those persons who do not have any foreign allegiance by virtue of their birth. Meaning they did not inherit foreign citizenship from their parents, and they did not inherit foreign citizenship by virtue of being born on foreign soil.

1.) He is not natural born because his father is Kenyan, and thus a subject of the United Kingdom. This has since been a failing argument because the judges are bought and paid for, claiming the person only needs one American parent to be a natural born citizen.

2.) He is not natural born because he was born on foreign soil.

[Jonas]

The irony of having that law, in a land where an integral part of the national identity is it was founded by settlers, is profound. Just saying.

[AEmer]

Yes, but they're making their allegations - that is, that he isn't a natural american - specifically for the purposes of impeachment. It's the same deal with the allegations that he's Kenyan - they make those for a specific reason, and within a very specific context. They don't actually care whether or not he's Kenyan, they just care that what they're saying means he's ineligible.

If he was impeached and removed, they would seize to make these allegations. They would no longer care where he was born at all.

That's why it makes sense to presume he isn't american if he can't prove otherwise. It doens't make sense if you meet him on the street, but for the purposes of eligibility - and this is the _only_ reason we're having this argument - it's perfectly alright to presume he isn't a natural american.

Except for the fact that he has proof that he is, of course. But if he didn't have, you should in fact presume he wasn't a natural american within this context.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding you, by the way - at least not now. But it does seem like you're trying to reframe the context to something more general. To say, these are general accusations, and as general accusations, they don't make sense.

That's fine, and I would agree with that, but they're not general. They have a very specific purpose. There's no shame in not being a natural american, or in being a kenyan, for that matter. As general accusations, they make very little sense, and they really don't matter.

[DaveW]

Look, it isn't that Barack Obama is NOT American. He may very well be American. It is that he is not eligible for not qualifying as a natural born citizen. A status only possessed by those persons who do not have any foreign allegiance by virtue of their birth. Meaning they did not inherit foreign citizenship from their parents, and they did not inherit foreign citizenship by virtue of being born on foreign soil.

1.) He is not natural born because his father is Kenyan, and thus a subject of the United Kingdom. This has since been a failing argument because the judges are bought and paid for, claiming the person only needs one American parent to be a natural born citizen.

2.) He is not natural born because he was born on foreign soil.

Now we're getting somewhere. I haven't watched the videos but the birth certificate disproves any claim that he was born on foreign soil so that's simply not true. By extension any claims in the videos to the contrary are also incorrect.

So the only argument is whether he is a "natural born citizen" - which, given that it didn't stand up in court probably isn't a very good argument. Basically, if you have to fight legal precedent in order to try and prove what the law is (which sounds contradictory because it is), and then resort to saying the Judges must have been paid off - you're probably wrong. Occam's razor.

So as someone who I assume believes Obama shouldn't be president, why do you feel the need to fight against the legal precedent? Legally speaking, Obama is entitled to be the President based on all available evidence - but you disagree with the accepted legal definition of "Natural born citizen", so he wouldn't be president. Why is that? Is it actually to do with his birthplace - in which case, why does that really matter to you? And if you disagree with his policies, why not come out and say that?