Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Proving citizenship for the POTUS

maxtr
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:36:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
By definition I am not a 'Birther'. Yet I can say that there is an expectation of proofs of natural citizenship for the POTUS. My position isn't so much that Obama isn't a natural citizen but that the aggregate total of those proofs offered are few.
I think it is reasonable that with every complication or aggravating circumstance surrounding such proofs the higher the scrutiny should applied to them.
Consider this, my son transferred schools recently. He had to provide;

A SS card
Original or Certified copy of BC with original seal for both.
Transcript for his last school
Doctors release for athletics
Immunization record
Proof of residency


Forgive my ignorance, but can anyone tell me what Obama provided to be the POTUS? I don't really know beyond the two BCs that he as offered.
Let me offer this question. Who had to provide the most proofs and quality of proofs to work at the White House, and who endured more governmental background scrutiny, Barrack Obama or the White House gardener?
Remember, the burden of proof for citizenship falls on Obama. I don't suppose that its possible for him to have provided less than what he has.
Finally, don't confuse Obama meeting the minimum criteria necessary for the POTUS with my question, they are two different things.
Speaking to all Americans here, we have a president that has offered us a long form copy of his BC well after he took office. He has a Kenyan born father who has changed his name, move from country to country, fathered half a dozen children born abroad, married a woman and divorced her. This woman lived among relatives at the time of Obama's birth. Does all this prove hat Obama isnt natural? Of course not, but i certainly should compel us to scrutinize the man and his offerings.

Again, this isn't a claim about Obama's citizenship but have used him as an example. This is about proofs for the POTUS and our scrutiny as to who they are or claim to be.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 12:49:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 11:36:55 AM, maxtr wrote:
By definition I am not a 'Birther'. Yet I can say that there is an expectation of proofs of natural citizenship for the POTUS. My position isn't so much that Obama isn't a natural citizen but that the aggregate total of those proofs offered are few.
I think it is reasonable that with every complication or aggravating circumstance surrounding such proofs the higher the scrutiny should applied to them.
Consider this, my son transferred schools recently. He had to provide;

A SS card
Original or Certified copy of BC with original seal for both.
Transcript for his last school
Doctors release for athletics
Immunization record
Proof of residency


Forgive my ignorance, but can anyone tell me what Obama provided to be the POTUS? I don't really know beyond the two BCs that he as offered.
Let me offer this question. Who had to provide the most proofs and quality of proofs to work at the White House, and who endured more governmental background scrutiny, Barrack Obama or the White House gardener?
Remember, the burden of proof for citizenship falls on Obama. I don't suppose that its possible for him to have provided less than what he has.
Finally, don't confuse Obama meeting the minimum criteria necessary for the POTUS with my question, they are two different things.
Speaking to all Americans here, we have a president that has offered us a long form copy of his BC well after he took office. He has a Kenyan born father who has changed his name, move from country to country, fathered half a dozen children born abroad, married a woman and divorced her. This woman lived among relatives at the time of Obama's birth. Does all this prove hat Obama isnt natural? Of course not, but i certainly should compel us to scrutinize the man and his offerings.

Again, this isn't a claim about Obama's citizenship but have used him as an example. This is about proofs for the POTUS and our scrutiny as to who they are or claim to be.

When being elected to office, he provided it to the appropriate committees. That data, as a public servant, does not have to be released, under law. Simples.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
maxtr
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 3:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Stephen Hawkings, I don't disagree, yet your reply doesn't address any quantitative or qualitative issues in regards to the POTUS threshold of proofs and documentations relative to the importance of the position the POTUS holds.
This isn't a question to be answered from the perspective of Obama and his minimizations but from the perspective of a patriot, an advocate for truth and voice of this country.
imabench
Posts: 21,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 3:10:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are very few things candidates have to do in order to qualify to run for president, one is be a certain age (which Obama is), be a natural born citizen (which he has proven), and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

Thats all they have to do, thats it, those three things and you can have a shot at running this nation.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
maxtr
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:48:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
imabench, thank you for your reply. Laying aside a moment the issue of duplicitous proofs required for the POTUS versus his gardener, I must say that Obama's 'proving' his citizenship didn't require much effort on Obama's supporters part.
My point is that there was a disingenuous eagerness to accept minimal proofs which were further compromised by spurious elements such as foreign born father that had moved and changed names, father children born abroad, had divorced his wife in addition to a mother that lived with relatives at times. This isn't an attempt to disprove Obama's citizenry but there should be a compulsion for scrutiny to the extent such complicating factors warrant.
Obama didn't offer up a long form BC until well after he took office. I personally know people that work in federal/local records buildings and its clear that even a janitor can walk up to public/private files at 3AM and add to or alter them at will.
The document that Obama has offered has been intentionally altered. There is an added background and sharpened text via Adobe, which is usual in making modern copies of BCs by government entities. Yet, it is easier to make copies of digitally altered Adobe files than making photostatic copies of an original sans the added background and other modern elements.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 9:11:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:48:00 PM, maxtr wrote:
imabench, thank you for your reply. Laying aside a moment the issue of duplicitous proofs required for the POTUS versus his gardener, I must say that Obama's 'proving' his citizenship didn't require much effort on Obama's supporters part.
My point is that there was a disingenuous eagerness to accept minimal proofs which were further compromised by spurious elements such as foreign born father that had moved and changed names, father children born abroad, had divorced his wife in addition to a mother that lived with relatives at times. This isn't an attempt to disprove Obama's citizenry but there should be a compulsion for scrutiny to the extent such complicating factors warrant.
Obama didn't offer up a long form BC until well after he took office. I personally know people that work in federal/local records buildings and its clear that even a janitor can walk up to public/private files at 3AM and add to or alter them at will.
The document that Obama has offered has been intentionally altered. There is an added background and sharpened text via Adobe, which is usual in making modern copies of BCs by government entities. Yet, it is easier to make copies of digitally altered Adobe files than making photostatic copies of an original sans the added background and other modern elements.

What's disingenuous is heaping so much attention on the birth certificate of the one politician out of a hundreds who just so happens to have a skin color that doesn't look "quite American."

There is no way an intellectually honest person would say that even the most retarded of political operatives would have simply "set aside" the fact that they may be supporting a candidate who is unequivocally unable to constitutionally support his position. And that the OPPONENTS wouldn't?

You think Hilary Clinton's operatives would have held back if they knew Obama wasn't a citizen? A MASSIVE conspiracy would be needed which involved everyone, including Clinton, saying "well, I'll spend millions of dollars to try and win, and even though I could knock my ONLY viable opponent out of the race, I'll hold out on the birth certificate just in case he wins."

The ONLY way a Birther can maintain intellectual integrity is to claim a conspiracy on par with faking the moon landing. Right wing operatives, Obama's vetters, every operative on Clinton's staff during the primaries, Congress, the RNC, Obama's own opponents (McCain and Romney) and their operatives, ALL have to be conspiring to keep this together.

We're talking about a political landscape where Bush's team claimed McCain had a black out of wedlock baby in the south.

You're telling me that in such an environment of harping up even the most deranged of scandals for political purposes, EVERYONE covered up Obama's birth certificate save for a few crackers who are half-way between a Truther and a Minute Man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 9:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 9:11:54 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/19/2012 6:48:00 PM, maxtr wrote:
imabench, thank you for your reply. Laying aside a moment the issue of duplicitous proofs required for the POTUS versus his gardener, I must say that Obama's 'proving' his citizenship didn't require much effort on Obama's supporters part.
My point is that there was a disingenuous eagerness to accept minimal proofs which were further compromised by spurious elements such as foreign born father that had moved and changed names, father children born abroad, had divorced his wife in addition to a mother that lived with relatives at times. This isn't an attempt to disprove Obama's citizenry but there should be a compulsion for scrutiny to the extent such complicating factors warrant.
Obama didn't offer up a long form BC until well after he took office. I personally know people that work in federal/local records buildings and its clear that even a janitor can walk up to public/private files at 3AM and add to or alter them at will.
The document that Obama has offered has been intentionally altered. There is an added background and sharpened text via Adobe, which is usual in making modern copies of BCs by government entities. Yet, it is easier to make copies of digitally altered Adobe files than making photostatic copies of an original sans the added background and other modern elements.

What's disingenuous is heaping so much attention on the birth certificate of the one politician out of a hundreds who just so happens to have a skin color that doesn't look "quite American."

There is no way an intellectually honest person would say that even the most retarded of political operatives would have simply "set aside" the fact that they may be supporting a candidate who is unequivocally unable to constitutionally support his position. And that the OPPONENTS wouldn't?

You think Hilary Clinton's operatives would have held back if they knew Obama wasn't a citizen? A MASSIVE conspiracy would be needed which involved everyone, including Clinton, saying "well, I'll spend millions of dollars to try and win, and even though I could knock my ONLY viable opponent out of the race, I'll hold out on the birth certificate just in case he wins."

The ONLY way a Birther can maintain intellectual integrity is to claim a conspiracy on par with faking the moon landing. Right wing operatives, Obama's vetters, every operative on Clinton's staff during the primaries, Congress, the RNC, Obama's own opponents (McCain and Romney) and their operatives, ALL have to be conspiring to keep this together.

We're talking about a political landscape where Bush's team claimed McCain had a black out of wedlock baby in the south.

You're telling me that in such an environment of harping up even the most deranged of scandals for political purposes, EVERYONE covered up Obama's birth certificate save for a few crackers who are half-way between a Truther and a Minute Man.

And yes, my friend, you are a birther in the same way someone who just "questions" 9/11 is a Truther.

Please don't try to cover yourself with Glenn-Beck-esque "constructed questions."
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:18:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:48:00 PM, maxtr wrote:
imabench, thank you for your reply. Laying aside a moment the issue of duplicitous proofs required for the POTUS versus his gardener, I must say that Obama's 'proving' his citizenship didn't require much effort on Obama's supporters part.
My point is that there was a disingenuous eagerness to accept minimal proofs which were further compromised by spurious elements such as foreign born father that had moved and changed names, father children born abroad, had divorced his wife in addition to a mother that lived with relatives at times. This isn't an attempt to disprove Obama's citizenry but there should be a compulsion for scrutiny to the extent such complicating factors warrant.
Obama didn't offer up a long form BC until well after he took office. I personally know people that work in federal/local records buildings and its clear that even a janitor can walk up to public/private files at 3AM and add to or alter them at will.
The document that Obama has offered has been intentionally altered. There is an added background and sharpened text via Adobe, which is usual in making modern copies of BCs by government entities. Yet, it is easier to make copies of digitally altered Adobe files than making photostatic copies of an original sans the added background and other modern elements.

What are you exactly recommending as far as how we prove our citizenship if a birth certificate is too easy to forge? That is all I have to prove my citizenship is the hospital birth certificate. WTF? You want people to get chipped? Put a brand on the skin? What?

It is time to call 1-800-LET-ITGO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 10:03:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 10:02:19 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
We all know Obama is obviously a homosexual communist fascist muslim from Kenya. Why do we even need to discuss this? :)

I heartily disagree. There's no evidence Obama is a homosexual. The rest is self-evident.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 12:09:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 3:06:31 PM, maxtr wrote:
Stephen Hawkings, I don't disagree, yet your reply doesn't address any quantitative or qualitative issues in regards to the POTUS threshold of proofs and documentations relative to the importance of the position the POTUS holds.
This isn't a question to be answered from the perspective of Obama and his minimizations but from the perspective of a patriot, an advocate for truth and voice of this country.

"Truth" isn't up for discussion: I cannot publish the US' invasion plans because they're "true". I don't have to publish my information to say I'm a real person to access public data. If someone came up to me, as a representative of a nation on any scale, saying "prove that you're from this country!" with no evidence against me whatsoever, I'm not going to provide the, based on my right to privacy: the right to be an individual person, not subject to others whims and desires. As free men, we can do as we wish unless it is seriously causing harm.

From the perspective of a "patriot" of Britain, I don't care whether our leader is English, Scottish, French, German, Gay, Atheist, Christian, Jew, as long as they're democratically elected and I somewhat consent with what they are doing. As a patriot, you should do the same. Patriotism is trust and support of your government, not attempting futile pointless incessant questioning to replace the government based on tyrannical standards.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...