Arizona ruled by Birthers: Obama off 2012 AZ Ballot

[I tererun]

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The exact same thing I've seen saying all along. Go me!

Explain how the terms 'citizen' and 'natural-born citizen' are interchangeable, then.

They were in 1787.

Proof, please.

Look, Obama was born in america and he has proven it. He is a citizen. You have been duped into making a ruckus by a bunch of racist dickheads who do not want a black man as their president. Stop being a tool of the racist assholes. Or at least up and join their idiocy so we can all laugh at you. The only thing that will happen if this law passes will be that Obama brings his birth certificate to arizona and shows it to them. At which point that still will not be enough proof for these people because it really is not about him being a citizen, it is about him being a black president. You cannot satisfy these people because they do not want you to prove anything. They just want obama gone and that is not happening.

Suck it up and wait until next election.

[Kaltros]

Omnileech

The thought process is fairly simple behind conspiracy theorists like Kaltros here.

1) They believe that they represent mainstream USA values and beliefs.

Nope. I know I'm out of the mainstream.

Quote:

2) Obama does not.

Wrong again. It's not about how 'mainstream' or not someone is. It's about truth, justice, and all that. I fully realize that these things are only valued and sought consistently by minor groups out of the mainstream.

Quote:

3) Yet Obama was able to win an election and by a large margin in fact.

See above. I'm not judging by how 'mainstream' he is.

Quote:

4) Conspiracy theorists like Kaltros can't admit that the rest of the country was so drastically different from their extremists values that they have to construct a scenario where Obama wasn't born in the US, or they make up some crap about how "natural born" means (for just Obama) that you HAVE to have both parents be born in the USA AND you have to be born in US soil as well.

Actually I can admit that most of the country is different from me in one way or another. The truth is extreme.

Quote:

5) Ergo they believe that it Obama rigged the system and so they ARE mainstream America and everyone else is not.

Again, completely wrong. This rant of yours doesn't even deserve the dignity of being called a straw man. I trust from now on you will stick to the topic and cut back on your unfounded theories about me.

[Kaltros]

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The exact same thing I've seen saying all along. Go me!

Explain how the terms 'citizen' and 'natural-born citizen' are interchangeable, then.

They were in 1787.

Proof, please.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

BECAUSE IN 1787 WHOEVER WAS A CITIZEN WAS TREATED AS IF THEY WERE NATURAL BORN.

So, let's assume you are right and the two terms are interchangeable. Why include both terms in the same sentence, then? There's a ridiculous amount of redundancy in there if it only means: "No person except a citizen shall be eligible to the office of president."

How do you explain the waste of eighteen words in that sentence?

Also, do you have anything besides your own statements to prove that the terms were, in fact, interchangeable?

[Molchunya]

ITT Kaltros grasps at straws and makes himself look like a jackass.

Let me borrow a page from John Stewart: [******** ******** yourself.

[Kaltros]

Spencer Veritas

ITT Kaltros grasps at straws and makes himself look like a jackass.

Let me borrow a page from John Stewart: [******** ******** yourself.

How am I grasping at straws?

[Ammo Amy]

I thought this crap was debunked a couple of years ago?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/has_obamas_birth_certificate_been_disclosed.html

Then there's this:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=M1&Date=20081109&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=811090361&Ref=V3



Now will the idiots please explain how the time machine got in there to plant the newspaper announcement?

Then again, this is Arizona, and we're seeing that state and their officials implode right now. between the senile senator and his Teabagger rival, and the Homophobic governor who says the law she signed that uses racial profiling can't use racial profiling, one must wonder what the hell is being put into their water.

[Omnileech]

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The exact same thing I've seen saying all along. Go me!

Explain how the terms 'citizen' and 'natural-born citizen' are interchangeable, then.

They were in 1787.

Proof, please.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

BECAUSE IN 1787 WHOEVER WAS A CITIZEN WAS TREATED AS IF THEY WERE NATURAL BORN.

So, let's assume you are right and the two terms are interchangeable. Why include both terms in the same sentence, then? There's a ridiculous amount of redundancy in there if it only means: "No person except a citizen shall be eligible to the office of president."

How do you explain the waste of eighteen words in that sentence?

Also, do you have anything besides your own statements to prove that the terms were, in fact, interchangeable?

I didn't say they are interchangeable, I said they WERE as of 1787. I guess it makes sense that if you can't read a document properly after repeatedly being proven wrong, that you couldn't read anything else well either. Keep up willfully misrepresenting everything everyone else says to fit your disillusioned mindset. Still waiting for you to show me that tiers of citizenship legislation.

[Wendigo]

Fortunately, that particular exception isn't entirely relevant these days.

I think it would have included Lafayette, though.

[Kaltros]

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

They were in 1787.

Proof, please.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

BECAUSE IN 1787 WHOEVER WAS A CITIZEN WAS TREATED AS IF THEY WERE NATURAL BORN.

So, let's assume you are right and the two terms are interchangeable. Why include both terms in the same sentence, then? There's a ridiculous amount of redundancy in there if it only means: "No person except a citizen shall be eligible to the office of president."

How do you explain the waste of eighteen words in that sentence?

Also, do you have anything besides your own statements to prove that the terms were, in fact, interchangeable?

I didn't say they are interchangeable, I said they WERE as of 1787.

I was referring to their use in 1787. Assuming they were interchangeable in 1787, why were eighteen words wasted in the sentence quoted? And what evidence do you have to prove they were interchangeable in fact?

[agrab0ekim]

We know that Obama is eligible, so all this does is tie up the busy courts as they tell Arizona that they:
A) have no right to limit the petition signed by their people under the state constitution
B) That the US Congress is the determinant of the President's qualifications
C) That he will be voted there even if off the ballot

[agrab0ekim]

Kaltros

Whether he's a natural born citizen or not is a legal question, and it's not the same thing as having citizenship. The legal question remains no matter where he was born, although it would be nice to get his geographical birth place settled too.

That said, this legislation is toothless. It's not really meant to accomplish anything besides rile up the constituents.

Yes it is, but the court has said that there is no case against Obama that he isn't American, thus nullifying the issue
If McCain had been elected, we would have a definition of what it meant.

His location of birth is the determinate, as he was a citizen from birth

[agrab0ekim]

Kaltros

Resid3nt

Kaltros

White Wolf of Nebu

Kaltros

although it would be nice to get his geographical birth place settled too.

Honolulu.

Great. Let's get the long-form and other relevant documents out of the vaults in Hawaii to corroborate that.

He doesn't need to. Prima facie, mother ********.

Now, Prima facie throws the burden of proof onto you.

But we've had this discussion.

What don't you understand about corroboration? Maybe he doesn't need to, according to you anyway, but he could help silence some of his critics if he did.

It wouldn't be that much trouble for him to distribute digital reproductions of the long-form and other relevant documents, would it? McCain did so when his eligibility was challenged.

But, regardless of the geographic part, I see you didn't touch the legal aspect concerning the difference between "citizen" and 'natural-born citizen". See, it doesn't really matter where he was born. His father was still a British citizen at the time of Obama's birth, and conferred British citizenship on him. Later he was given Kenyan citizenship, also through his father, when Kenya became independent. These things are true no matter where Obama was born.

prove that there is a long-form and that it has more standing, as, according to HI, the form he provided is the only legal one

also, for the rest, wrong, wrong, wrong

[agrab0ekim]

Wendigo

Fortunately, that particular exception isn't entirely relevant these days.

I think it would have included Lafayette, though.

The wording was actually placed there to keep one specific person from ever becoming President, which is interesting and alters the Birther's arguments

[Omnileech]

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

They were in 1787.

Proof, please.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

BECAUSE IN 1787 WHOEVER WAS A CITIZEN WAS TREATED AS IF THEY WERE NATURAL BORN.

So, let's assume you are right and the two terms are interchangeable. Why include both terms in the same sentence, then? There's a ridiculous amount of redundancy in there if it only means: "No person except a citizen shall be eligible to the office of president."

How do you explain the waste of eighteen words in that sentence?

Also, do you have anything besides your own statements to prove that the terms were, in fact, interchangeable?

I didn't say they are interchangeable, I said they WERE as of 1787.

I was referring to their use in 1787. Assuming they were interchangeable in 1787, why were eighteen words wasted in the sentence quoted? And what evidence do you have to prove they were interchangeable in fact?

You keep asking questions that have already been answered. It's no wonder you keep denying Obama's eligibility. If you ever wanted to know why everyone on this forum views you as some sad joke, it's because you you won't shut up about things already settled. Any rational person would be satisfied but you're not a typical rational person are you?

I've answered all your questions over and over even after you've made great pains to twist and distort things I have said. You've also answered none of my own questions or provided support for your claims. I'm declaring myself right and you wrong. Any rational person disagree? Sorry Kaltros but you don't count. Not after your performance here.

[Kaltros]

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

Kaltros

Omnileech

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

BECAUSE IN 1787 WHOEVER WAS A CITIZEN WAS TREATED AS IF THEY WERE NATURAL BORN.

So, let's assume you are right and the two terms are interchangeable. Why include both terms in the same sentence, then? There's a ridiculous amount of redundancy in there if it only means: "No person except a citizen shall be eligible to the office of president."

How do you explain the waste of eighteen words in that sentence?

Also, do you have anything besides your own statements to prove that the terms were, in fact, interchangeable?

I didn't say they are interchangeable, I said they WERE as of 1787.

I was referring to their use in 1787. Assuming they were interchangeable in 1787, why were eighteen words wasted in the sentence quoted? And what evidence do you have to prove they were interchangeable in fact?

You keep asking questions that have already been answered. It's no wonder you keep denying Obama's eligibility. If you ever wanted to know why everyone on this forum views you as some sad joke, it's because you you won't shut up about things already settled. Any rational person would be satisfied but you're not a typical rational person are you?

I've answered all your questions over and over even after you've made great pains to twist and distort things I have said. You've also answered none of my own questions or provided support for your claims. I'm declaring myself right and you wrong. Any rational person disagree? Sorry Kaltros but you don't count. Not after your performance here.

Where have you answered my questions concerning the use in 1787 of the terms 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen'?

And, by the way, I haven't yet answered your questions because I am trying to start at the beginning. Without settling the beginning of this issue--the Constitution, in other words-- the other questions are pointless. As you yourself said earlier in this thread:

Quote:

there is no law greater than that of the Constitution.