View Single Post
      05-24-2011, 09:25 PM   #34
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
167
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
Why can't you realize that people get frustrated with you, because you keep asking the same questions and making the same statements, over and over again, while ignoring the answers which have been provided.
The questions come up when there was no sufficiency in an answer. Which questions and statements have I made repeatedly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
It has been established probably 20 or 30 times in this forum that a child does not lose citizenship by living in another country - this whole train of discussion is moot.
The question is not whether you lose citizenship by living in another country. They question includes what was his citizenship when he was admitted to an Islamic school? Do you have to be Indonesian to go to an Islamic school? What was his citizenship when he went to Pakistan? If he was American in Pakistan, did he break the law? If he was Indonesian, could he have dual citizenship? Or was his citizenship renounced to become and Indonesian citizen? There are likely more questions in this line of reasoning that I have not considered. I have tried to get the discussion going here, because these are the forums where I post. What has been discussed of this subject in other forums?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
Further, it was never a secret that Obama's father was not a US citizen, yet you act as if you are revealing something that hasn't yet been considered.
Everyone know that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen. That is not the question. The question is whether his father's citizenship being British made it impossible for his son to be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. The argument being whether BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens AND the child be born on U.S. soil in order to be a "natural born Citizen". There is information at points in U.S. and pre-U.S. history that are emminently appropriate to the argument. It takes effort to find the info to come closer to an understanding of the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. And then it leads at some point to whether what the original intent of the Constitution even matters to present-day America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
As far as the birth certificate, the logical explanation is that it's real, and that's the end of it. There's a big difference between "healthy scepticism" and being pigheaded. You're latching onto this image analysis conspiracy, while giving no consideration to the fact that Obama's 1961 birth was announced in two Hawaiian newspapers, and the validity of his birth records was certified by the republican governor of Hawaii.
I think that the birth certificate is probably real. It is possibly something that has been actively used by Obama as a means of deflecting attention of some of his critics from the more important points of his citizenship, and also of his policies. There are interesting points of discussion about the certificate and the apparent inconsistencies with scan. With the certificate numbering, and I don't know what all else as in this thread it is my first look at it. I am interested in hearing both sides of the argument in a thoughtful way. The shouting and the insulting is not a discussion. As for corroborating evidence in the newspapers: This is part of the argument favoring Hawaii as the location of birth. There are explanations for how that could have occurred, but I have not paid much attention to that. Others may have more to say about that. If it could be established that Obama was born in Kenya, then we have a major problem. Assuming he was born in Hawaii, there are things that should be discussed that have not been dealt with in these forums except to be dismissed by some before any discovery is made. This is the court of public opinion and there should be evidence presented, rather than assumptions based on ignorance alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar View Post
But the real question is why you and others waste your lives discussing this meaningless topic. All legal challenges on this issue have been struck down long ago. Meanwhile, the 2012 republican field is pathetic, and with your "principle" of voting for minor candidates, you are not taking measures towards getting someone else into office (which is fine by me).
Why do people waste their time talking about tax policy? Why do people discuss gasoline prices? Why do people discuss the stock market? Why talk about the job market? Why talk about the environment? Why talk about war? We discuss these, because they are interesting even if individually we can't change what happens outside our immediate sphere of influence. Courts have been known to make mistakes. Courts have become political entitites. Even the Supreme Court is nearly always divided with a significant minority opinion. Just because a court decision happens, it doesn't mean discussion ends with the people. I can choose to support whom I wish in elections. My vote for a small party candidate is much more valuable than a vote for someone in the siamese twin parties. There can be exceptions to that principle where I do support someone running as if one of the twins.

Fianlly, thanks for the more civil tone of voice.