 | | 
10-20-09, 03:11 PM
|  | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| |
And since you apparently missed this sentence... Quote:
Everybody get that?
As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.
| |
10-20-09, 03:12 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| |
Still waiting for your opinion on why all the secrecy? Fourth amendment? LOL! |
10-20-09, 03:43 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50  I would say that CBS/Dan Rather were a little more deceptive. | You're dodging the point. It doesn't matter that CBS/Dan Rather was bias to the left; it's wrong REGARDLESS. |
10-20-09, 03:49 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Meh. I posted a Kenyan birth certificate that was just as believable. | So if you're argument is now that neither can be counted as creditable (because you will say that any news source that I post saying the Kenyan certificate is fake is bias to the left and I could argue the same about any you post being to right).
So what are we left with then? We can only offer information that either of us has obtained first hand, which is nothing (if I'm wrong, show otherwise). In that case, neither has any evidence of anything, so, once again, there is no reason for Obama to prove anything. |
10-20-09, 03:58 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Let me see if I have this right:
While you agree that there are eligibility requirements, you do not believe that a person must prove their eligibility. Their word is good enough. And spending over a million dollars to keep records that would prove/disprove their claim is good because it is exercising their 4th amendment. | No no no no. I don't believe that a person must prove their eligibility. Instead, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW STATES! Dude, really, go look it up for yourself. Go look up whether or not a presidential canidate needs to prove their citizenship to be on the ballot. Go look it up right now.
ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT I BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES NOT NEED TO PROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP. RATHER, THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE IT!!!!!! Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 On an unrelated note, are you equally against DUI roadside checkpoints? While I feel your 4th amendment claim holds no water with 0bama, it certainly applies to roadside checkpoints in my opinion. | It's obvious all of your arguments are based off of assumptions and not research. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Wikipedia The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. | Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you said in your last statement, it is your opinion; not the law. There is a difference. Now, if you feel that a candidate should be required to prove their citizenship, or answer any claim made against them, then you're more them welcome to fight for that change.  |
10-20-09, 04:01 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: April 2003 Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 And since you apparently missed this sentence... Quote:
Everybody get that?
As long as an adult can walk into Hawaii’s version of the Department of Records and provide proof that they are a legal resident of Hawaii, the document is issued.
| | LOL- Of course someone from out of state can have a certificate issued, but it won't list Hawaii as the place of birth 
Last edited by bigconig; 10-20-09 at 04:03 PM.
|
10-20-09, 04:02 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| |
So, BC, if you were in the same position, would you fight tooth and nail to keep all real records secret? And it will if you tell them he was born in Hawaii. COLB does not require backing documents. |
10-20-09, 04:05 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 No no no no. I don't believe that a person must prove their eligibility. Instead, THAT IS WHAT THE LAW STATES! Dude, really, go look it up for yourself. Go look up whether or not a presidential canidate needs to prove their citizenship to be on the ballot. Go look it up right now.
ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT SAYING THAT I BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES NOT NEED TO PROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP. RATHER, THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE IT!!!!!! What is the point in requiring it if it is not necessary to prove it? I find it amazing that you can justify this for the highest office of the United States, yet it is unacceptable for Little League or children's soccer teams. It is also funny that the Dems cried about McCain when they thought Hillary was going to be the candidate. They quieted up very quickly when it turned out to be 0
It's obvious all of your arguments are based off of assumptions and not research. Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you said in your last statement, it is your opinion; not the law. There is a difference. Now, if you feel that a candidate should be required to prove their citizenship, or answer any claim made against them, then you're more them welcome to fight for that change. | I asked YOUR opinion on roadside checkpoints. Not wikipedia's. Since you seem to be a defender of the fourth amendment, do YOU feel that roadside checkpoints are legal? Do YOU feel that it should be legal to pull over every car going down a road with no due cause? Or is this an example of the constitution being violated for the good of the population?
Last edited by strtrcr50; 10-20-09 at 04:09 PM.
|
10-20-09, 04:17 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| |
Lets try this on a normal common sense level and see how sane it sounds.
It is required to have a driver's license to drive, yet the police are not allowed to ask you to see it.
Yep, you're right. That makes perfect sense. |
10-20-09, 04:20 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: April 2003 Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 So, BC, if you were in the same position, would you fight tooth and nail to keep all real records secret? | What records? Are you still talking about his college records? I have only seen this brought up on conspiracy theory sites and chain emails, where are the copies of papers filed by this supposed "team" of lawyers? Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 And it will if you tell them he was born in Hawaii. COLB does not require backing documents. | Actually [§338-17.8] states that a birth certificate will be issued, not a COLB. It also does not state that that document will list Hawaii as the birth place. |
10-20-09, 05:47 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 And the last time I checked, all it took to get an announcement of birth in a newspaper was a phone call to said newspaper. | And that is just the point. IF Obama was not born in the US, then why would his birth be announce in a US paper? Why would his parents call a US paper and have them announce a birth in Kenya? |
10-20-09, 05:52 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by sphinx What makes you think they are being deceptive? Because no one else airs the same stories? You know if you really feel like they are being deceptive it isn't too hard to verify what they say with a simple Google search. | No, because if you go and check their "facts" against other news out lets or sources, it find there is be a difference. Now, either all other news sources are lying, or just one is. Which is more likely? |
10-20-09, 05:57 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 I'd release my BIRTH CERTIFICATE and whatever other records they needed since I have nothing to hide. | You really don't get it do you? It's not a matter of whether you have anything to hide, it's a matter of the Constitution. If you fail to understand that, then you fail to understand why this country is so great. |
10-20-09, 06:00 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 And since you apparently missed this sentence... | You are missing the point. All you can get is a COLB; nothing else will be issued. Quote: |
When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.
| |
10-20-09, 06:04 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Still waiting for your opinion on why all the secrecy? Fourth amendment? LOL! |
I'm still waiting for your and D.Hearne response to why you think this Glenn Beck's logic is ok. Stop dodging it. Answer the question. Do you see why this is wrong? Yes or no and WHY? |
10-20-09, 06:09 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 I asked YOUR opinion on roadside checkpoints. Not wikipedia's. Since you seem to be a defender of the fourth amendment, do YOU feel that roadside checkpoints are legal? Do YOU feel that it should be legal to pull over every car going down a road with no due cause? Or is this an example of the constitution being violated for the good of the population? | My opinion is IRRELEVANT! It's an opinion! By DEFINITION that makes it not a fact. That is all that matters here; the facts. Nothing else.
You're trying to make this personal. It's not. All I am saying is that the law says that you do not have to prove that you are a natural born citizen to be on the ballot for president. PERIOD. What do you not understand about that?
Last edited by 6Stang7; 10-20-09 at 06:14 PM.
|
10-20-09, 06:12 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Lets try this on a normal common sense level and see how sane it sounds.
It is required to have a driver's license to drive, yet the police are not allowed to ask you to see it.
Yep, you're right. That makes perfect sense. | Yea, you're right, it doesn't make sense. However, that is irrelevant. The law requires you to show your ID when you are stopped. It does not require to you prove your a natural born citizen to be on the ballot for president. Get it? Is it fair? Depends on your opinion, but in the end, IT IS THE LAW!
How the hell have you not come to grasp with this?
Last edited by 6Stang7; 10-20-09 at 06:15 PM.
|
10-20-09, 07:55 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 That is just wrong!!!! How do you not see that?!?! By your same logic, I can say: "Just the fact that Glenn Beck has yet to prove that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990 to all of us, should raise red flags in your vision."
Please tell me how you can see that the logic there is flawed and wrong.
First, I say he isn't required by law BECAUSE HE ISN'T! I don't get it. It is not required by law to prove that you are a citizen to be on the ballot for president. Period. I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but can you even understand that? I've said that over and over. That IS the law. If you don't like it, THEN FIGHT FOR IT TO BE CHANGED! Arguing that we should do something OUTSIDE the scope of the law because you feel it is right doesn't work. Listen. I'm not saying everything Obama does is right, or is best for the country, OR ANYTHING relating to his politics. Never ONCE have I in this thread. You don't understand what I am saying. Obama is not required by law to prove his citizenship until legally challenged. If you don't understand the strict definition of that, then you don't understand how our country was founded.
You last few sentences are moot to this argument (why he hasn't shown proof of citizenship). I'm not here to argue whether the public option in good or bad or anything else of the sorts. Please, stay on track. |  You must be stupid or deaf. Or a combination of the two. Never mind that he's not required by law to produce these documents (now). If he really wants to lay this to bed, he would (if not hiding something in his past) do so regardless. This is like arguing with a fence post.  And IT IS required by the constitution to prove citizenship to be on the ballot, otherwise it would not be required to do so to be president.
Last edited by D.Hearne; 10-20-09 at 07:57 PM.
|
10-20-09, 08:17 PM
|  | I love meat more than anything! I just have a special place for dogs. | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moorhead, Minnesota
Posts: 567
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusstbuster Was one of his parents a US Citizen when he was born? |  |
10-20-09, 09:09 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 Yea, you're right, it doesn't make sense. However, that is irrelevant. The law requires you to show your ID when you are stopped. It does not require to you prove your a natural born citizen to be on the ballot for president. Get it? Is it fair? Depends on your opinion, but in the end, IT IS THE LAW!
How the hell have you not come to grasp with this? | Unreal.. First off, when the constitution was written, there was no birth certificates, etc.. How could it be in there when it didn't exist. However, the requirement is there. If it is required, in the case of a dispute or question, common sense would dictate it would have to be proven. |
10-20-09, 09:16 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne You must be stupid or deaf. Or a combination of the two. Never mind that he's not required by law to produce these documents (now). |
O ok, so let's ignore the tiny fact that he is not required by law. Really? I must be stupid to follow what the law states.  Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Hearne If he really wants to lay this to bed, he would (if not hiding something in his past) do so regardless. This is like arguing with a fence post. And IT IS required by the constitution to prove citizenship to be on the ballot, otherwise it would not be required to do so to be president. | You have just shown your failure to comprehend the case. You are required to be a US citizen to run for president. You are not required to prove that you are a US citizen to run for president. There is a huge difference there they you apparently don't understand. Who's the fence post?
And from the looks of what bigconig posted from the Hawaii's records office, they will only issue COLB when you make a request for a BC (means that no matter what, Obama could never get a BC from them). I haven't checked this out first hand yet to take it with a grain of salt. |
10-20-09, 09:22 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Unreal.. First off, when the constitution was written, there was no birth certificates, etc.. How could it be in there when it didn't exist. However, the requirement is there. If it is required, in the case of a dispute or question, common sense would dictate it would have to be proven. | All the Constitution states is that you must be a US citizen; there is nothing in there about you needing to prove it. You're right common sense would dictate that you should have to prove it, but the law doesn't necessarily follow common sense, and you need to understand that.
I agree with you; you should have to prove the requirements to run for president. HOWEVER, at the moment you don't have to. Do you understand the difference? |
10-20-09, 09:23 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| |
strtrcr50 and D.Hearne, you still have yet to answer my question. Why do both of you keep dodging it? |
10-20-09, 09:30 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: September 2000 Location: south louisiana
Posts: 10,216
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 strtrcr50 and D.Hearne, you still have yet to answer my question. Why do both of you keep dodging it? | Us doing the dodging ? REALLY !!!! The only one here failing to comprehend the argument seems to be you. You're like a dog chasing his tail. I'm done arguing with Fence posts. |
10-20-09, 09:53 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: July 2001 Location: Des Moines, Ia
Posts: 184
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Strype Did anyone in Hawaii use the word "Negro" in 1961? | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 No.. | Yep, you're right and I was wrong. They used to put "colored". I knew it wasn't "African" though. Think about it, in '61 whites still ruled a good chunk of the African continent. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
Allena
Allena
