Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Should Republicans Declare Ted Cruz Ineligible for the Presidency? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Should Republicans Declare Ted Cruz Ineligible for the Presidency?
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, don't be falsely naive. You know I've read excerpts and lots of other people's critiques of his autobiographies. I have a pretty good handle on the text that you so lovingly embrace. Suffice it to say that your interpretations are on the fringe that is occupied by people who hate Obama and will find any interpretation to justify their opprobrium surrounding his birth, childhood, education, and service to his community and the nation. You got nothing besides your convictions.

"It is always his absent bio-dad that the "dreams" come from, and I understand why this is the case."

You know everything but understand nothing.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I'd be genuinely curious to see you put forward three pundits "on the right" who optimistically looked forward to Obama as a uniter but changed their minds more than a month or so after his inauguration.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Why would a "pundit" need to work with Obama? Both John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell refuse to participate in any back-room deals with Barry any longer because his word is not worth two cents. The "sequester" fiasco was the last straw. Our ex-Senator Bob Bennett (a three term conservative) was thrown out in the first round State primary due to his participation in TARP, and immigration compromise talks... and I was happy to see that fool go. He was out maneuvered at every turn into no-compromise "compromises".

If the annointed-one had been more genuine as a "unifier", the country actually would have been worse off, because more of his agenda would have been implemented.

Al,

Is that really your best response?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Why are you lying G3? Obama released his birth certificate in 2008.

Please. That was such a fake.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Aris, so you think that Barry's evasiveness, and misrepresentations, concerning the circumstances surrounding his birth, both in print and on the stump, did not merit the production of his long-form birth certificate?
Oh, so now you're changing the issue -- it wasn't that he declined to release the long form birth-certificate that supposedly caused the speculation, it was "his evasiveness and misrepresentations".

Neither "evasiveness" nor "misrepresentations" (whatever things you're talking about) ever had of course anything at all with the place of his birth, so this just even more baloney.

Dance, dance and excuse away but fact remains: Neither George W. Bush, nor Bill Clinton, nor Ronald Reagan ever released their "long-form birth certificates".

This supposed necessity was created as an invented insult to Obama. The first president you ever demanded this of. Other presidents passed muster merely by the whiteness of their skins and the Anglo-Americanness of their names.

And the birthers who do so aren't even sane enough to perceive their own motivations.

[ August 26, 2013, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Please. That was such a fake."

Oy!

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Both John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell refuse to participate in any back-room deals with Barry any longer because his word is not worth two cents.
Within a month of Obama's election -- not even inauguration -- McConnell was on record as saying that he intended to obstruct any legislation Obama supported. Are you suggesting that there are Republicans in Congress who genuinely tried to work with Obama to achieve goals amenable to both sides -- as opposed to pushing through their own -- and at some point gave up out of frustration with his partisan stubbornness? Because that's easily falsifiable.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By the way, Barry never identifies Lolo as his "father", but as an amiable tragic figure."

Do you know the difference between a "father" and a "father figure"? Please explain that difference so I'll know you do understand.

BTW, you never explained what you meant when I asked what you meant that Obama's childhood was "quite unsettled".

As Aris points out, it's hard to keep up with you when you continually change the topic without fully explaining yourself before you move on. So why don't you resolve these two questions before you go down another dark alley.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris,

"Oh, so now you're changing the issue -- it wasn't that he declined to release the long form birth-certificate that supposedly caused the speculation, it was 'his evasiveness and misrepresentations'."...

You are really straining on this one. What do you find incongruent about withholding the document under evasive, and misrepresentational pretense? That particular modus operandi is typical of Barry in his public, and private life generally.

"And the birthers who do so aren't even sane enough to perceive their own motivations."...

Are you being intentionally ironic? You are making mass "sanity" diagnosis of "motives" over the internet? [Wink]

Al,

By "unsettled", I mean abusive. Abandonment is one of the more serious forms of child abuse.

Tom,

But for McConnell, there would have been no Republican dialogue with Democrats during the recently manufactured "sequester" crisis. It took the trust he had in Joe Biden, of all people, to break the impasse.

Lisa,

Good to see you here.

[ August 26, 2013, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But for McConnell, there would have been no Republican dialogue with Democrats during the recently manufactured "sequester" crisis.
What do you believe that dialogue accomplished for either side?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By "unsettled", I mean abusive. Abandonment is one of the more serious forms of child abuse."

??? Talk about stretching!

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

The whole affair was a sham manufactured by Mike Lew... but McConnell apparently took is seriously. That is my point. Some on the right give way too much weight to Barry's publicly stated intentions. During his first campaign, one would have thought that there truly were "no red States, or blue States, only the United States" in his world view...

Al,

I failed to mention that "Lolo" has some connotation of "crazy" in Hawaiian, and this is how Barry's grandfather characterized the "stepfather" to him. Stanley Dunham was actually the closest thing that Obama had to a father, and that idiot took him to a black political radical for mentoring.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know you guys have been arguing about this for quite some time, but do you really have to be nasty?
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
[QB] You are stretching by claiming that direct evidence of Obama's birth in a Honolulu hospital is circumstantial. Since claims that he *wasn't* born there are completely circumstantial, you're applying the "FOX fair'n balanced" rule to imply that both arguments are legitimate, when clearly one isn't.

You've jumped the shark here. Is something I said untrue? If it had played out the way inferred could we have seen the result that was presented intially? I think the answer has to be yes.

However, the possibility that something is true is not the same as proof that it is true. I do think the President was wrong not to settle the issue clearly, as it created an implication that he had something to hide and lended credence to the theory, but he was correct that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of the law.

And honestly, even if the long form had shown that the doctor wasn't present, and that his birth was a matter of attestation, that would have still not likely have been enough to change his status, though it would definitely have had more people believing that he was not legitimate.
quote:
BTW, I know someone who quite sincerely believes that Obama stole the SSN of someone who got his SSN and later died in Connecticut. The basis for the argument is fuzzy, but is essentially that the zip code for the Connecticut town is different from a Hawaii zip code by changing the leading "0" to a "9", and that's what Obama did.
Lol. You'd get further with me, by acknowledging that the President's situation was more irregular than typical and arguing that he was within his rights not to go the extra mile (even if it wasn't necessarily wise) than you will with flying spaghetti monster arguments on this one. Even if is fun to try and paint the other side as absurd, what are you adding to the issue?

And I am still waiting, is there something about the basic facts that I noted that is untrue? If not I still think there should be an apology for calling G3 a liar.

[ August 26, 2013, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You've jumped the shark here. Is something I said untrue?"

Effectively, yes. You are implying that there is reason to suspect that there was fraud in the recording of Obama's birth, but there is no actual evidence for it.

"However, the possibility that something is true is not the same as proof that it is true."

That's why I want to see the original Cruz birth certificate and have DNA tests prove that the people claiming to be his parents actually are. Without proof, we can't be sure.

"I do think the President was wrong not to settle the issue clearly, as it created an implication that he had something to hide and lended credence to the theory..."

He went far beyond the kind of "proof" that any other President in the history of the US has ever been asked to provide. He did that only after resisting the baseless suspicions for months because the nutty screamers wouldn't go away. Nor did they go away after he provided the proof (the short form), so he went even one step further and provided the long form. No surprise, the nutty screamers are screaming fraud even louder.

It's not possible to satisfy conspiracy theorists, since they will dismiss every effort to assuage their concerns. Since they have never come up with anything more than suspicions, they don't deserve to be listened to.

"Lol. You'd get further with me, by acknowledging that the President's situation was more irregular than typical and arguing that he was within his rights not to go the extra mile (even if it wasn't necessarily wise) than you will with flying spaghetti monster arguments on this one. Even if is fun to try and paint the other side as absurd, what are you adding to the issue?"

You're mistaken. This is one wing of the theory that encompasses Obama's phony SSN, bogus draft registration, that he didn't attend Columbia or Occidental, and that other people wrote his papers at Harvard. My God, man! Pay attention! I know someone who passionately believes all of that and that Arpaio has the proof but has been suppressed.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The whole affair was a sham manufactured by Mike Lew... but McConnell apparently took is seriously. That is my point.
So you're saying that McConnell, despite saying otherwise a couple weeks into Obama's "reign," actually harbored the desperate hope that he could help Obama enact some policies Obama wanted to enact until just recently?

*laugh*

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... resisting the baseless suspicions for months..."?

Al, do you have any concept of how long the suppression of Barry's birth circumstances was sustained? His book was published in the mid 1990's. The deception predates his Senate campaign, and I believe that it was an opponent, Alan Keyes, who first raised the issue in a public forum.

Regarding DNA testing, why do you feel it necessary to draw such a non-comparable homologoue?

[ August 26, 2013, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, yes. Alan Keyes. *happy sigh* Now there was a certifiable wingnut.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

The questioning is getting a little inane at this point. I never suggested that Conservatives wanted to enact Obama's policies. There is a feature of American politics called compromise that falls short of your criteria for cooperation... but both you and Barry appear to operate from the same paradigm.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah yes, a "wing-nut" whose lead was followed by none other than Hillary.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Didn't respect Hillary's choices enough to vote for her at any point, myself. Did you?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On that we are in agreement... now lets see who you vote for in 2016.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I never suggested that Conservatives wanted to enact Obama's policies.
Yes. So why, exactly, are you suggesting that McConnell ever attempted to work with Obama? Working with Obama to enact McConnell's policies isn't cooperation; it's extortion. McConnell never compromised a meaningful lick. Even after the second election, when Obama finally decided to stop bending over backwards to hand Republicans everything they wanted, McConnell decided that he'd rather take his balls and go home. Boehner, to his credit, at least tried to get something done. Sort of.

[ August 26, 2013, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What part of the sequester ruse was McConnell's idea? He played ball with the White House much longer than most conservatives would have at that point in Barry's reign.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He played ball with the White House much longer...
Really? Which of his proposals do you think was both sincere and contained significant compromise?

Note, by the way, that you're now saying that McConnell was somehow willing to work with Obama up to the moment Obama decided to let the sequester happen, despite the fact that he is on record saying exactly the opposite years before.

[ August 26, 2013, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Al, do you have any concept of how long the suppression of Barry's birth circumstances was sustained?"

They were suppressed for over 40 years. George Bush's have now been suppressed for 67 years and counting!. Cruz shouldn't expect that people will simply accept that he was born to an American and a Cuban in Canada without hard evidence. The DNA test will tell us a lot, and forensic testing of the so-called official birth certificate will tell us even more. Until then I can't consider voting for him. But when he does meet those very low standards, I will have other more troubling questions for him.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The manner in which Social Security benefits are calculated springs to mind. But for that, the Democrats would have struck a deal in the Senate.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al,

Do you believe that there is reason to question GWB's parentage? If that is where you are, I would prefer to let you have that debate with yourself.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"You've jumped the shark here. Is something I said untrue?"

Effectively, yes. You are implying that there is reason to suspect that there was fraud in the recording of Obama's birth, but there is no actual evidence for it.

Effectively? Really? I don't care one way or the other on this issue. How about you show what's not true, not what's "effectively not true" in what I said. Leave the "implications" out of it.
quote:
"However, the possibility that something is true is not the same as proof that it is true."

That's why I want to see the original Cruz birth certificate and have DNA tests prove that the people claiming to be his parents actually are. Without proof, we can't be sure.

Lol. You go for it, but as a purely abstract matter this is order's of magnitude more extreme than the "Birther" question (unless I have a fact wrong, which could presumably change the measure).
quote:
"I do think the President was wrong not to settle the issue clearly, as it created an implication that he had something to hide and lended credence to the theory..."

He went far beyond the kind of "proof" that any other President in the history of the US has ever been asked to provide. He did that only after resisting the baseless suspicions for months because the nutty screamers wouldn't go away. Nor did they go away after he provided the proof (the short form), so he went even one step further and provided the long form. No surprise, the nutty screamers are screaming fraud even louder.

You really think providing a birth certificate is "far beyond" the kind of proof other presidents have offered? You know I have to provide a certified birth certificate for my daughter play in her travel soccer league, I'm not seeing why you think this was a great effort.
quote:
It's not possible to satisfy conspiracy theorists, since they will dismiss every effort to assuage their concerns. Since they have never come up with anything more than suspicions, they don't deserve to be listened to.
I agree with you. You won't satisfy conspiracy theorists, however, what occurred here by the President's choices was to raise an issue with non-conspiracy theorists. Those are people who it is possible to satisfy.
quote:
"Lol. You'd get further with me, by acknowledging that the President's situation was more irregular than typical and arguing that he was within his rights not to go the extra mile (even if it wasn't necessarily wise) than you will with flying spaghetti monster arguments on this one. Even if is fun to try and paint the other side as absurd, what are you adding to the issue?"

You're mistaken. This is one wing of the theory that encompasses Obama's phony SSN, bogus draft registration, that he didn't attend Columbia or Occidental, and that other people wrote his papers at Harvard. My God, man! Pay attention! I know someone who passionately believes all of that and that Arpaio has the proof but has been suppressed.

I'm not mistaken, notwithstanding that you seem to overassociate conspiracy theories with legitimate questions (I won't say concerns, cause honestly, I question the merits of the natural born clause when you're talking about an infant raised as an American in any event).

Your argument here really is just impassioned pleading. Given the question raised by a report of a Kenyan birth, it was not irrational for people to want to see a birth record that indicated that there was a third party witness present at the birth. If such a record had not existed in Hawaii that would have been the end of the question for non-conspiracy theorists. The fact that it did exist and release was refused is what caused this to get blown out of proportion.

It is an irrational policy that is created by the interplay of the Constitution and Hawaii's birth rules, but that is a different question.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You really think providing a birth certificate is "far beyond" the kind of proof other presidents have offered?"

Obama probably had to provide a birth certificate at different points in his life, as everyone else does. Clearly there was no suspicion then or we'd be hearing about that, too. The question (for you) is what other Presidents have been required to produce a birth certificate to prove their Constitutional right to serve in that role? For extra credit, name any member of Congress in the entire US history who has had to do that.

"Your argument here really is just impassioned pleading. Given the question raised by a report of a Kenyan birth, it was not irrational for people to want to see a birth record that indicated that there was a third party witness present at the birth. If such a record had not existed in Hawaii that would have been the end of the question for non-conspiracy theorists. The fact that it did exist and release was refused is what caused this to get blown out of proportion."

We're not seeing the same problem. I'm asserting that the so-called public demand to see the actual birth certificate was unjustified and downright racially motivated. I don't know if you were paying attention, but we had a very long thread on this topic several years ago where argument after argument was made supporting the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, Canada or Indonesia. Not a single one of those claims survived.

Most of my comments on this topic are meant to be treated as sarcasm, but here's the honest truth:

. Nobody in the birther movement was willing to take Obama's word for anything regarding his birth. They wouldn't take the word of Hawaii state officials or the hospital, either.

. If fairness is the rule, that means we can't take anybody's word for anything regarding anyone else's birthright to become President. Since a clever forger could produce a birth certificate document that would survive analysis, the only means left are to test the DNA of both parents and the candidate.

If you are willing to listen to speculative and suspicious hearsay, you can't set an arbitrary threshold and say, well if he shows me that then I guess it's ok.

As an aside, I saw the play Othello this weekend. When Desdemona told him the truth that he was no longer willing to believe, that cemented his conviction that she was lying. That play is based on a small suspicion raised by an unreliable witness. So is this phony concern.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... And there we have it: William Shakespeare should have been consulted from the beginning.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frankly, Noel, you would certainly benefit from grappling with Shakespeare's canon and coming to grips with the issues he wrestled with. After all, some of the greatest thinkers of the past 300 years spent considerable portions of their lives doing that, and whether you agree or not I daresay at least a few of them are your intellectual equal or superior.

[ August 26, 2013, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay Al... I love Shakespeare, and am more than passingly familiar with his "canon". What I find comical is your random appropriation of his work to justify the actions of a politician who was actually caught in a lie.

That's right; a lie. Perhaps not a lie that you, or I, am particularly concerned about from a standpoint of content, but a lie that nonetheless caused undue conflict in a political environment that was already polarized, and highly charged. He did the nation a disservice, and should be held accountable at least to the level of an apology.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. : Shakespeare died four hundred years ago.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It took a while for the heavy thinking to kick in, but let's not muddy this discussion with your expertise on that topic, too.

"That's right; a lie."

Which is what? Is this yet another new branch in your Obamaology?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Obamaology"... I like that. An independent field of study could probably be supported by all the convoluted intricacies of this man's story-line.

The lie that I am talking about is his assertion that his parents were married at the time of his birth, and that he was heir to a noble heritage. In fairness, his grandfather created the tale, but Barry was astute enough by the time he published his book to know better. He would have garnered more political capital if he simply took a cue from William Jefferson Clinton.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The lie that I am talking about is his assertion that his parents were married at the time of his birth, and that he was heir to a noble heritage."

And for that he should be...what? BTW, Obama's parents were married in February, 1961. Are you alleging that Obama was born before that date? Can you produce proof of this heinous act (whichever act was the heinous one; I'm losing track again).

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would like some details on their marriage. Where did it occur, who was present, and have you been able to locate a marriage license, or certificate?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, that's a rathole. You have asserted that they were *not* married, which he and his parents claimed, so it's up to you to cough up the docs to back it up. Just to head off another tack you might take, I do not have records indicating when Obama did not use explosives to breach the New Orleans levee during Katrina. As far as I know, he was not in Seattle at that time either, and may not have been in several other places, as well.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"You really think providing a birth certificate is "far beyond" the kind of proof other presidents have offered?"

Obama probably had to provide a birth certificate at different points in his life, as everyone else does. Clearly there was no suspicion then or we'd be hearing about that, too. The question (for you) is what other Presidents have been required to produce a birth certificate to prove their Constitutional right to serve in that role? For extra credit, name any member of Congress in the entire US history who has had to do that.

Why do you bring in irrelevancies? The Congressional requirement is not citizenship by birth, why would they need to produce one?

Has there been another president where there were reports of a foreign birth that potentially impacted his eligibility, that did not act to resolve those issues? I'm not involved directly, but I think I remember that McCain had gotten a confirmation on his status given his birth location - wouldn't that have involved a showing of proof?

I still think you're attempting to distract and obfuscate rather than addressing my question.
quote:
We're not seeing the same problem. I'm asserting that the so-called public demand to see the actual birth certificate was unjustified and downright racially motivated.
I am sure someone out there was so motivated. But this argument is a logical fallacy. The issues stand free from the motivation of those presenting them and I've reasonably asked on multiple occasions for a direct address to the "facts" as I presented them (in quotes because while I understand that to be the argument that birthers make I can't attest to validity).
quote:
I don't know if you were paying attention, but we had a very long thread on this topic several years ago where argument after argument was made supporting the claim that Obama was born in Kenya, Canada or Indonesia. Not a single one of those claims survived.
I read it at the time, and I don't agree that every issue was disposed of as you indicate. Declaring an issue refuted is not the same as refuting it.
quote:
. Nobody in the birther movement was willing to take Obama's word for anything regarding his birth. They wouldn't take the word of Hawaii state officials or the hospital, either.
And? Given there was documentary evidence available why should anyone take the word of someone with self interest on the issue? I was fairly inclined myself to rely on the Hawaiin officials, but it wasn't unreasonable for others to assert they had a self interest in the matter.
quote:
. If fairness is the rule, that means we can't take anybody's word for anything regarding anyone else's birthright to become President. Since a clever forger could produce a birth certificate document that would survive analysis, the only means left are to test the DNA of both parents and the candidate.
This conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. And I would dispute your premise. The rule should be that the candidate has the duty to establish their qualification for office, and where there is a dispute, they should (but obviously don't have to) provide the strongest support they have available.
quote:
If you are willing to listen to speculative and suspicious hearsay, you can't set an arbitrary threshold and say, well if he shows me that then I guess it's ok.
I'm curious as to when you think additional scrutiny would be called for? What fact pattern would have to be present, if his mother had come forward and said she lied would he have been done? The fact is, in most disputes of fact, if one side can show some evidence that an issue may be the case the other side should respond (they don't always have to because of a difference in the burden of proof, which as here, may be in their favor).

Keep arguing if you want, but there wasn't really any good reason not to clear the matter up.
quote:
As an aside, I saw the play Othello this weekend. When Desdemona told him the truth that he was no longer willing to believe, that cemented his conviction that she was lying. That play is based on a small suspicion raised by an unreliable witness. So is this phony concern.
Your proof is a play? Lol.

Is it really that hard to argue the facts?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... Another argumentum ad ignorantum Al?

I will make it easier for you. Ann Dunham lists her residence as 6085 Kalaiananaole Hwy. on the long-form birth certificate. This was her parent's house. The University of Hawaii was provided an address of 625 11th Ave. , Honolulu for Obama Senior. Would you consider it normal for newlyweds to take up residence at separate locations? We know that she did move out of her parents house to cohabitate with Lolo Sotero at about the time Obama Senior abandoned his son to pick-up an advanced degree at Harvard, so it is not like she was particularly discriminating on the housing she would tolerate.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1