So asserting that Barack Obama is legally qualified to be President of the US reflects the exact same mentality as asserting that Barack Obama is not legally qualified to be President of the US. Because both assertions are completely foreclosing contrary possibilities. Got it.
Well, that’s convenient. Rand Rover, I think it’s simply despicable that you rape puppies and wangle promotion by giving your boss blowjobs. If you attempt to assert that on the contrary, you do not rape puppies or give blowjobs to your boss, then you’re displaying the exact same mentality shown in my assertions about you, and your assertions are no more credible than mine.
That’s very astute and nuanced thinking there Kimstu. Well done.
It’s not “making an assertion” that is equivalent. The equivalency is in acting like one has the ability to know absolutely what the law means and any contrary interpretations are automatically invalid due only to their contrariness.
So, I’ll take that as a no - that in any other circumstances, Barack Obama’s citizenship would not be questioned and there is no precedent establishing why it should be questioned.
As a follow-up, I guess someone could compile a list of the presidents and vice-presidents (since eligibility to hold the second job is dependent on eligibility to hold the first) and check on their parents. Having one non-natural citizen parent doesn’t seem to bring one’s own citizenship and eligibility into question (i.e. Spiro Agnew), but maybe one of the past executives had a case more analogous to Obama’s.
Let me say first that the definition of NBC is not really the issue at hand and is not the ostensible point of contention raised by Birthers. Their contention is that Barack Obama was not born in the US. That’s the point you’re avoiding addressing like the plague. The NBC definition is really an irrelevant misdirection on your part.
Having said that, you know damn well that there is no possibility that the Supreme Court would ever rule that a person born in the US to an American born mother is not a natural born citizen. None. Zero. It would not ever happen. The possibilities that it would or would not happen are not equivalent.
You’re not stupid. You know this. You know you’re full of shit. You just seem to think that everyone here (including the other lawyers) are idiots who are going to be befuddled and intimidated by your ridiculous obfuscations and evasions.
Why can’t you just answer my question, Randy. Do you think the allegations that Barack Obama was born outside the US has any plausibility? Yes or no?
How am I the one hijacking exactly? I think Frank’s the hijacker–I just asked gonzo for a cite (which we’ll never see) and Frank went full metal retard on my ass.
[/QUOTE http://talkers.com/online/?p=71 Presently 1 and 3. Hannity slips in. but Beck has a longer time slot ,so he is more listened to than Hannity.[/QUOTE]
UH WHAT? I asked for a cite that Beck and Rush were repeating Birther bullshit. Your link to ratings doesn’t say anything about that.
Dio, you have issues, buddy (I mean, besides the hang-up about your daughters ever having sex ever). I’ve already said in this thread that (i) birthers are idiots and (ii) I will believe anyone’s claim about where they are born unless I have evidence to the contrary, and I don’t have any evidence to the contrary w/r/t Obama.
If one has a rock-solid legal consensus about how the law applies in a particular case, then yes, any contrary interpretations of how the law applies to that case are automatically invalid due only to their contrariness.
There is absolutely no reasonable doubt among US jurists that Barack Obama is legally qualified by the circumstances of his birth to be President of the United States, despite some theoretical fuzzy spots in the Constitutional technical term “natural born citizen”. Any claims that there does exist reasonable doubt from a legal standpoint about whether Obama is qualified to be POTUS are therefore invalid.
It’s ridiculous to try to claim any kind of logical equivalency between acknowledging a recognized legal fact and trying to wiggle out of acknowledging it by inventing far-fetched legal interpretations that don’t stand up in any court. Just because no interpretation of any law is 100% guaranteed immutable for all time doesn’t mean that all interpretations have to be equally accommodating towards contrary views, or that all contrary views are equally worthy of serious consideration.
People who are convinced that Obama’s birth legally qualifies him to be President, and that any contradictory interpretations are invalid, are supported by the entire body of recognized law on this issue. People who are convinced that Obama’s birth may legally disqualify him from being President, and that any contradictory interpretations are invalid, are irrational loons divorced from the reality of recognized jurisprudence. Those two viewpoints are not in any way equivalent.
Well, that means you really are the dumbass piece of shit you act like when you post here.
Frankly, I’ve always been willing to allow you were just some pathetic turd who thought it was fun getting Dio worked into a froth and not taken your lame bullshit too seriously.
However, now that I realize you are a puppy raping, boss-blowing pathetic turd… that changes the situation.
