Is anyone curious?

[Liability]

The right spent almost all of Clinton's two terms trying every dirty trick in the book to get him impeached and finally got him to lie about an extramarital affair.

What? The GOP got him to lie? How did they convince or coerce him into that? You make it sound like Clinton was somehow the victim. He had the affair. He lied about it. How is that the fault of anyone but himself? Are you sure you're a conservative? It's not like any conservative I know to make excuses for someone's irresponsible behavior.

Yeah sweetheart, I'm sure I'm a conservative. Tell me what conservative principle covers trying to unseat a president who won an election fair and square over a cum stain on a dress. Is it the principle of "if you throw enough shit against the wall, something will stick" principle? 99.9% of men who have been unfatihful in their marriage are going to lie right out of the box, especially a guy in an office as high and symbolic as the presidency of the US. I'm no Clinton fan, but there was extremely dirty politics played by some scum sucking low life "conservatives" in an effort to unseat the man at any and all costs. They sold their souls for partisan politics and point scoring. Grudges were held and the favor returned when Bush was president. Conservatives reaped what they sowed just as liberals are now reaping what they sowed over Bush what with all the wingnut birther shit being thrown at Obama. It needs to stop at some point. We're all fascinated with the inticing dancing flames while ignoring that it is out house burning down.

You see, I like to refer to myself as an HONEST conservative. They are in short supply these days. I'm not part of a team. I don't give a rat's ass about scoring points. I care about America and this kind of crap isn't good for America.

I am a conservative.

That's a dishonest "question." Just because you (erroneously) assume that the basis for "trying to unseat" IDF President Clinton was that Monica preferred spit to swallow, doesn't make it so.

Legitimate questions about former President Clinton did exist. SOME of the investigations into those things were probably warranted. The scope of the investigations (imho) did turn into a bit of a witch hunt. But President Clinton drew an awful lot of the fire on himself when he found it expedient to lie under oath. Was it perjury? For technical reasons, I agree with the Senate trial outcome on that Article. It probably was not perjury.

Even so, did his lying in a Court proceeding justify the impeachment inquiry and the articles that got voted out for a Senate trial? Absolutely. The issue was his lack of fitness for the Office in light of his dismissive disregard for the truth. The issue was never just the fact that he was a sexual predator.

And on that latter topic, let's get real. Were it a Republican President having sexual relations with a young intern, what "liberal" and what "Democrat" wouldn't be expressing vociferous outrage at this kind of "sexual harrassment" in the workplace?

 

[kwc57]

On Drudge this morning.

McCain Lawyers Investigated Obama Citizenship -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

 

[Liability]

On Drudge this morning.

McCain Lawyers Investigated Obama Citizenship -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

So what?

Seriously.

Why on Earth would it be a "bad" thing for one of the two guys running for the Presidency (well, the only two with a chance of actually winning) to "investigate" whether his opponent was even properly qualified for the Office?

 

[kwc57]

On Drudge this morning.

McCain Lawyers Investigated Obama Citizenship -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

So what?

Seriously.

Why on Earth would it be a "bad" thing for one of the two guys running for the Presidency (well, the only two with a chance of actually winning) to "investigate" whether his opponent was even properly qualified for the Office?

It isn't a bad thing. The point was that they found it without merit just as the courts who have rejected it.

 

[Liability]

On Drudge this morning.

McCain Lawyers Investigated Obama Citizenship -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

So what?

Seriously.

Why on Earth would it be a "bad" thing for one of the two guys running for the Presidency (well, the only two with a chance of actually winning) to "investigate" whether his opponent was even properly qualified for the Office?

It isn't a bad thing. The point was that they found it without merit just as the courts who have rejected it.

The point of the article you cited does NOT say that they found it without merit.

Instead of just linking to it, you might want to re-read it. It was fairly circumspect in noting that based on what they were able to see (which isn't much, by the way) they could not reach the conclusion. Do you need to have your own cited material quoted?

 

[kwc57]

So what?

Seriously.

Why on Earth would it be a "bad" thing for one of the two guys running for the Presidency (well, the only two with a chance of actually winning) to "investigate" whether his opponent was even properly qualified for the Office?

It isn't a bad thing. The point was that they found it without merit just as the courts who have rejected it.

The point of the article you cited does NOT say that they found it without merit.

Instead of just linking to it, you might want to re-read it. It was fairly circumspect in noting that based on what they were able to see (which isn't much, by the way) they could not reach the conclusion. Do you need to have your own cited material quoted?

Geez freaking louise!!! Are you serious? I did read it, that is why I posted it. Obviously, you didn't read it before spouting off. Here is the text from the link.........

........As we asked earlier this week, if questions over President Obama's citizenship were valid, wouldn't they have come out during the presidential campaign?

David Weigel talked with Trevor Potter and other lawyers for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who said that they did look into the Obama citizenship rumors and found them without merit.

Said Potter: "To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."

 

[Smartt33]

As I see it, He may be legally an American, I really am not convinced, but He is anything but a true partiotic American, as I see it.

 

[jvn]

It isn't a bad thing. The point was that they found it without merit just as the courts who have rejected it.

The point of the article you cited does NOT say that they found it without merit.

Instead of just linking to it, you might want to re-read it. It was fairly circumspect in noting that based on what they were able to see (which isn't much, by the way) they could not reach the conclusion. Do you need to have your own cited material quoted?

Geez freaking louise!!! Are you serious? I did read it, that is why I posted it. Obviously, you didn't read it before spouting off. Here is the text from the link.........

........As we asked earlier this week, if questions over President Obama's citizenship were valid, wouldn't they have come out during the presidential campaign?

David Weigel talked with Trevor Potter and other lawyers for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who said that they did look into the Obama citizenship rumors and found them without merit.

Said Potter: "To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."

And, equally importantly, they never brought up the bogus issue of "his father wasn't a citizen so he can't be an NBC..."

This whole thing is nonsense!

 

[Liability]

It isn't a bad thing. The point was that they found it without merit just as the courts who have rejected it.

The point of the article you cited does NOT say that they found it without merit.

Instead of just linking to it, you might want to re-read it. It was fairly circumspect in noting that based on what they were able to see (which isn't much, by the way) they could not reach the conclusion. Do you need to have your own cited material quoted?

Geez freaking louise!!! Are you serious? I did read it, that is why I posted it. Obviously, you didn't read it before spouting off. Here is the text from the link.........

........As we asked earlier this week, if questions over President Obama's citizenship were valid, wouldn't they have come out during the presidential campaign?

David Weigel talked with Trevor Potter and other lawyers for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who said that they did look into the Obama citizenship rumors and found them without merit.

Said Potter: "To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."

Cheese, Lois! Let me highlight the part you appear now to be skimming over:

To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. * * * *

To the extent they could. Why was it limited? Because they could not (nobody can) get their hands on the actual birth certificate! Yes. JUST rumors. But not seeing evidence does not mean it's not out there. IT just can't be verified. Accordingly, they limit their conclusions -- as they should. Tehy can't source ANYTHING to EVIDENCE. Right. Again, that does not mean it's not out there. THEY just got denied access. Accordingly, they made the RIGHT determination not to reach a conclusion which they lack the evidence to make. I have no quarrel with any of that. But again, not having access to the evidence may prevent reaching the specific conclusion. It cannot rule it out.

 

[kwc57]

The point of the article you cited does NOT say that they found it without merit.

Instead of just linking to it, you might want to re-read it. It was fairly circumspect in noting that based on what they were able to see (which isn't much, by the way) they could not reach the conclusion. Do you need to have your own cited material quoted?

Geez freaking louise!!! Are you serious? I did read it, that is why I posted it. Obviously, you didn't read it before spouting off. Here is the text from the link.........

........As we asked earlier this week, if questions over President Obama's citizenship were valid, wouldn't they have come out during the presidential campaign?

David Weigel talked with Trevor Potter and other lawyers for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign who said that they did look into the Obama citizenship rumors and found them without merit.

Said Potter: "To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."

Cheese, Lois! Let me highlight the part you appear now to be skimming over:

To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations. We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. * * * *

To the extent they could. Why was it limited? Because they could not (nobody can) get their hands on the actual birth certificate! Yes. JUST rumors. But not seeing evidence does not mean it's not out there. IT just can't be verified. Accordingly, they limit their conclusions -- as they should. Tehy can't source ANYTHING to EVIDENCE. Right. Again, that does not mean it's not out there. THEY just got denied access. Accordingly, they made the RIGHT determination not to reach a conclusion which they lack the evidence to make. I have no quarrel with any of that. But again, not having access to the evidence may prevent reaching the specific conclusion. It cannot rule it out.

On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state's Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance."

Kind of negates the rumors......no?

 

[jvn]

I can't tell you how gratifying it is to have you endorse my right, if I wish to use it, to debate any of the points of this matter. Thanks. I'm touched. Now, when challenged, I can tell people "jvn gave me his seal of 'okey-dokey' to discuss it!"

But you are wrong when you tell us that any Constitutional authority has "certified" the President's bona fides. No they have not. They simply ignored that topic altogether. But, yes, he is President today. Whether it is a Constitutionally legitimate assumption of that Office (in terms of the NBC qualification to hold the Office) is not established and I doubt it ever will be.

I still refer to him as President Obama.

They similarly "ignored" the question of whether he had actually proven he was older than 35 - I mean, look how young he looks, right? Also, did they examine his "proof" that he had legally been a resident of the United States for the required 14 years?

Do you know why they "simply ignored" those "issues" as well?

Probably because we all had access, already, to sufficient information to determine his age and that he had been a U.S. resident here for 14 plus years.

What we didn't have -- and still don't have -- is a valid birth certificate that presumably would have put this entire question to rest.

See, I KNEW you knew the reason that the state election officials, the Electoral College, the entire Congress GOP and Democrats, and the right leaning USSC "ignored" this question. It's the SAME reason they "ignored" his age and residency requirements.

The fact is that the COLB IS THE ONLY CERTIFICATION THE STATE ISSUES AND IT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS CONTAINED THEREIN, that is, the date and place of birth and who his parents are.

As much as you or anyone else really, really, really want to know who the doctor was who attended his birth and what hospital he was born in, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ELIGIBILITY.

 

[Liability]

They similarly "ignored" the question of whether he had actually proven he was older than 35 - I mean, look how young he looks, right? Also, did they examine his "proof" that he had legally been a resident of the United States for the required 14 years?

Do you know why they "simply ignored" those "issues" as well?

Probably because we all had access, already, to sufficient information to determine his age and that he had been a U.S. resident here for 14 plus years.

What we didn't have -- and still don't have -- is a valid birth certificate that presumably would have put this entire question to rest.

See, I KNEW you knew the reason that the state election officials, the Electoral College, the entire Congress GOP and Democrats, and the right leaning USSC "ignored" this question. It's the SAME reason they "ignored" his age and residency requirements.

The fact is that the COLB IS THE ONLY CERTIFICATION THE STATE ISSUES AND IT IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS CONTAINED THEREIN, that is, the date and place of birth and who his parents are.

As much as you or anyone else really, really, really want to know who the doctor was who attended his birth and what hospital he was born in, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ELIGIBILITY.

Ignoring the balance of your random string of words, it should be noted that you are totally wrong and you know you are totally wrong:

The COLB is absolutely NOT the "only" certification the State of Hawaii issues. There is this thing called a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" and they issue THOSE things, too. They come with a bit more information than is revealed on any COLB. And there is not one reason on God's Green Earth that would satisfactorily explain why the President would decline to release that document which he certainly had in his possession -- inasmuch as he referenced it in his own book.

And you are also wrong in pretending that his eligibility has nothing to do with which hospital he was born in -- if he was born in a hospital at all. This or that hospital in Hawaii? Agreed. No difference. But in a hospital or in some hut in Kenya? HUGE difference. I doubt the authenticity of the COLB. I doubt the authenticity of the information contained within the COLB. The best evidence is still the Birth Certificate. And you know it. Everyone does.

 

[jvn]

Ignoring the balance of your random string of words, it should be noted that you are totally wrong and you know you are totally wrong:

The COLB is absolutely NOT the "only" certification the State of Hawaii issues. There is this thing called a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" and they issue THOSE things, too. They come with a bit more information than is revealed on any COLB. And there is not one reason on God's Green Earth that would satisfactorily explain why the President would decline to release that document which he certainly had in his possession -- inasmuch as he referenced it in his own book.

And you are also wrong in pretending that his eligibility has nothing to do with which hospital he was born in -- if he was born in a hospital at all. This or that hospital in Hawaii? Agreed. No difference. But in a hospital or in some hut in Kenya? HUGE difference. I doubt the authenticity of the COLB. I doubt the authenticity of the information contained within the COLB. The best evidence is still the Birth Certificate. And you know it. Everyone does.

You certainly have the right to "doubt the authenticity of the information contained within the COLB" but the constitutional authorities in the United States, those who have the responsibility under our system of government to ascertain and certify the qualifications of and the election of the President have no such doubts.

If you feel strongly that the President provide more information so that you feel comfortable that he was born in Hawaii, I would suggest that you send a letter to the White House threatening to not vote for him next time around unless he shows you his "original, long form" BC...

 

[Liability]

Ignoring the balance of your random string of words, it should be noted that you are totally wrong and you know you are totally wrong:

The COLB is absolutely NOT the "only" certification the State of Hawaii issues. There is this thing called a "BIRTH CERTIFICATE" and they issue THOSE things, too. They come with a bit more information than is revealed on any COLB. And there is not one reason on God's Green Earth that would satisfactorily explain why the President would decline to release that document which he certainly had in his possession -- inasmuch as he referenced it in his own book.

And you are also wrong in pretending that his eligibility has nothing to do with which hospital he was born in -- if he was born in a hospital at all. This or that hospital in Hawaii? Agreed. No difference. But in a hospital or in some hut in Kenya? HUGE difference. I doubt the authenticity of the COLB. I doubt the authenticity of the information contained within the COLB. The best evidence is still the Birth Certificate. And you know it. Everyone does.

You certainly have the right to "doubt the authenticity of the information contained within the COLB" but the constitutional authorities in the United States, those who have the responsibility under our system of government to ascertain and certify the qualifications of and the election of the President have no such doubts.

You have ZERO basis for this claim since NOBODY, no institution, no public authority, not Congress, not the Electoral College has EVER said that the President meets the minimal Constitutional qualifications since they have seen and they "rely" on the COLB.

If you feel strongly that the President provide more information so that you feel comfortable that he was born in Hawaii, I would suggest that you send a letter to the White House threatening to not vote for him next time around unless he shows you his "original, long form" BC...

I don't believe I ever sought your "suggestions" or "advice." There's a reason for that. They are of no value and hold no interest for me.

I realize that you are thrilled that President Obama got elected and was able to assume the Office without having to establish to ANYBODY at ANY TIME, EVER, that he is Constitutionally eligible. But, even so, it would have been preferable for anybody getting inaugurated to have to establish such minimal Constitutional qualifications.

 

[Emma]

Why these records of our president are not available?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

The COLB was released. It's what Hawaii releases upon request for a birth certificate. It had the proper signature, with a seal and everything. The director of the state department of vital records (whatever they call it there) verified it's authenticity, and that the original is on file. Other than that, NOTHING on your list is required for him to serve as POTUS.

 

[Emma]

without having to establish to ANYBODY at ANY TIME, EVER, that he is Constitutionally eligible. But, even so, it would have been preferable for anybody getting inaugurated to have to establish such minimal Constitutional qualifications.

The Executive of each state is charged with certifying candidates, elections and the eligibility/validity of same. Not a one removed him from the ballot for ineligibility to serve. On the other board, I posted examples of various state applications to appear on the ballot. In every case, the candidate swears that he or she is eligible to serve if elected, under penalty of fraud and perjury if they lie. If they didn't do their duty to ensure that a candidate was eligible to serve, then there are 50 top state officials (most are secretary of state) who violated federal and their own state laws in the primary and general elections.

 

[Liability]

without having to establish to ANYBODY at ANY TIME, EVER, that he is Constitutionally eligible. But, even so, it would have been preferable for anybody getting inaugurated to have to establish such minimal Constitutional qualifications.

The Executive of each state is charged with certifying candidates, elections and the eligibility/validity of same. Not a one removed him from the ballot for ineligibility to serve. On the other board, I posted examples of various state applications to appear on the ballot. In every case, the candidate swears that he or she is eligible to serve if elected, under penalty of fraud and perjury if they lie. If they didn't do their duty to ensure that a candidate was eligible to serve, then there are 50 top state officials (most are secretary of state) who violated federal and their own state laws in the primary and general elections.

Which constitutes zero evidence that even one such individual or designee did anything whatsoever to verify President Obama's place of birth.

 

[007]

Why these records of our president are not available?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

The COLB was released. It's what Hawaii releases upon request for a birth certificate. It had the proper signature, with a seal and everything. The director of the state department of vital records (whatever they call it there) verified it's authenticity, and that the original is on file. Other than that, NOTHING on your list is required for him to serve as POTUS.

What you're failing to point out here is, the FIRST COLB that soetoro posted online was a computer generated piece of low rent forgery. So they upped the ante and posted a new version complete with the seal and wrinkles in a paper copy, which ANYBODY could forge. None the less, let's assume it's real. It still PROVES NOTHING! No hospital name, no doctors name, no nothing. And it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that ANYONE could be ISSUED a COLB in Hawaii in 1961, and whether you were born there or not was of NO SIGNIFICANCE. You could have been born on the moon and still been issued a COLB. So for those of you who continue to harp on the COLB being "proof," you're all just totally OUT TO LUNCH.

 

[Emma]

without having to establish to ANYBODY at ANY TIME, EVER, that he is Constitutionally eligible. But, even so, it would have been preferable for anybody getting inaugurated to have to establish such minimal Constitutional qualifications.

The Executive of each state is charged with certifying candidates, elections and the eligibility/validity of same. Not a one removed him from the ballot for ineligibility to serve. On the other board, I posted examples of various state applications to appear on the ballot. In every case, the candidate swears that he or she is eligible to serve if elected, under penalty of fraud and perjury if they lie. If they didn't do their duty to ensure that a candidate was eligible to serve, then there are 50 top state officials (most are secretary of state) who violated federal and their own state laws in the primary and general elections.

Which constitutes zero evidence that even one such individual or designee did anything whatsoever to verify President Obama's place of birth.

LOL

Sure it doesn't.

Hey, if you want to toss your hat in with the birthers, be my guest.

As I have (at least peripherally) followed this from the beginning I know that NOTHING will ever satisfy these idiots. Nothing. For each question answered and numbnut story debunked, they are convinced it's further proof of a cover-up. And everyone is in on it. In fact, the more evidence against them, the more they believe it just proves they're right. That's how crazy conspiracists work

 

[Dr Grump]

Why these records of our president are not available?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of baptism-- Not released or 'not available'
14. Illinois State Senate records--'not available'

The birth thing was sorted out long ago.
Why would I give a shit if he was baptised?

Bush released ALL of his NG records yet?