Originally posted by danx
How do you know Justice Thomas didn’t want to hear the case because of McCain’s situation?

I don't. Anything's possible. But it appears to me that some element of the suit must have had merit for him to refer it to conference.

Originally posted by The Nighthawk

What level of proof would convince you Obama is exactly who he says he is?

Lol, none, there is no proof, there is only evidence, 'undisputable proof' for you, it seems, has been a BC on the internet? Gimme 2 hours, i could get my birth certificate to say I was born on Mars, catch my drift? It ain't hard.

I think he is their for a reason, I never thought he would get booted out, can you understand the possibility of race riots if the first black president was disgraced and vooted out? Despite the evidence he was 'illegitimate'. IMO, he is a gimmick, a distraction to show people of America and the world that America is the land of equality, the land of integrity, the land of justice.

I know, I know, I'm crazy.

From what agency would said proof have to come in order for you to believe?

Lol, what 'agency'? Well, would you accept it if NASA told you there where no such things as UFO's and showed you pictures with no anomalies in it?

Obama himself produced his Birth Certificate. It's been available since June and it has been verified by a bevy of experts and authorities. Hawaiian authorities say it is genuine. You refuse to accept it. From what authority would you need to see this in order to do so?

Maybe so, but this does not determine truth, until you have seen it yourself and verified it yourself, you are accepting other people's opinions, any one of these people could be lying for some reason and most of these have gone on other peoples opinions and say so, generally those with more power and influence.

Please, tell the truth. I want your honest answers. If you can answer these questions reasonably there can be an honest discussion. If you cannot, then there's no point and this thread should be shut down as a troll-fest.

I have given my honest answer, there is no proof, only bodies of evidence with which we make our assumptions and suppositions, so stop calling people crazy, we are just different.

EMM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
THAT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.

And that obviously wasn't enough to convince Thomas either, because he referred the case to conference. But of course, that means nothing.

He referred it to conference, primarily to say "Ok.. we will look at this so you will stop acting like a completely and utter arse". "There... we looked at it... it's still lame... are you happy?"

That's what most likely occured. But to be honest.. neither of us know and so there are no "indications" that can be extrapolated from this.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by danx
How do you know Justice Thomas didn’t want to hear the case because of McCain’s situation?

I don't. Anything's possible. But it appears to me that some element of the suit must have had merit for him to refer it to conference.

Not at all. The fact that they conferenced on it means less about the merits of the case and more about the publicity it has been getting.

This is their way of saying "Ok... we will respond to this meaningless drivel by saying that we looked at it and it is baseless"


It's basically saying "Let's not.. and say we did"


Of course... that's just as much speculation on my part as you have on your part.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by danx
How do you know Justice Thomas didn’t want to hear the case because of McCain’s situation?

I don't. Anything's possible. But it appears to me that some element of the suit must have had merit for him to refer it to conference.

I didn’t say it didn’t have merit, in fact I’ve written extensively that I believe this case does have merit and should be heard.

It’s just that perhaps it’s not merit regarding Obama’s situation, because as I pointed out, other people are mentioned in this lawsuit, or Justice Thomas saw the potential of this case in addressing the “natural born” status specifically, that would set a precedent.

But I just wanted to point out that assuming the reasons why Justice Thomas agreed to it, is merely speculation and I believe that’s something you don’t like either:

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
That's speculation.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
That's speculation.

I should have said that their decision to conference on it is PROOF of nothing as regards the merit of the case. You speculated that Thomas supported a conferencing on it because he thought it obviously had some kind of merit and that's not necessarily true. That's all I'm sayin'.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But it appears to me that some element of the suit must have had merit for him to refer it to conference.

THAT'S speculation.

Actually, I have mixed feelings about this case not being heard. I really wish you and others in your position could see the original birth certificate. But I'm not at all convinced you'd believe it even if you saw it. I mean, the border might be fuzzy... Look at mine. It's ALL cracked up and old-looking...

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
You are the guy who claims Obama is a lying nutcase.

I am the voice of reason.

You are the crazy.

The Supreme Court is on MY side.

I never said you were racist I asked are you racist? Because WHEN the President was white NOBODY ever said he wasn't from America. Because white people think you have to be white to be American.

*SMACKS HEAD AGAINST WALL*

No, cause there was no doubt that Bush's hillbilly ass was from Texas. You are digging yourself a hole here buddy, I suggest you get out before its too late. There is nothing wrong with someone having an opinion that differs from yours, so why don't you cool it?

This is disturbing. This should be cleaned up and now. It should be confirmed as a legal certificate and confirmed on mainstream media. There should be no doubt. A president elect should not have something so basically unlawful looming as a possibility. We spend billions of dollars per year to hear court cases that should never even have made it into court - and THIS isn't worthy? Ridiculous and wrong.





[edit on 8-12-2008 by spinkyboo]

Wow, so I am speculating when I assume that a case needs to have some merit before it is referred to conference? WTF?

I would have loved for this case to be heard, simply so I could put it to rest in my mind, not all of yours. And BH, I don't know why you'd say that about me that you don't think I'd believe it even if the SCOTUS took the case? Come on now, I am not that shallow. I have said many times that I'd be completely satisfied if:

1) The SCOTUS court ordered his vault copy.

2) They had it analyzed by forgery experts to assure its validity.

3) They wrote a formal request to the government of Kenya asking for verification that they have no record whatsoever of Obama's birth in Kenya.

4) The forgery analysis came back clean

5) SCOTUS proclaims Obama eligible.

Done. End of story for me. That would be enough.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, so I am speculating when I assume that a case needs to have some merit before it is referred to conference? WTF?

Not at all! I thought I had given a good example, maybe I didn’t do a good job.

You’re speculating on why it has merit. You assume it’s because of Obama, but since this case isn’t about Obama exclusively, you can’t.



[edit on 8-12-2008 by danx]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, so I am speculating when I assume that a case needs to have some merit before it is referred to conference?

Yes. They conference on MANY cases to SEE if they have merit. And as I explained, they may have conferenced on it just to keep it from bouncing through all 9 judges. We don't know WHY they conferenced on it.

Maybe it depends on what is meant by "merit"

And BH, I don't know why you'd say that about me that you don't think I'd believe it even if the SCOTUS took the case?

Because if the SC had taken THIS case, they would have NO REASON to order a vault copy, considering this case didn't even question the place of his birth. This was a case that questioned the Constitution and its meaning of "natural-born" as it applied to a person born in Hawaii with Kenyan citizenship.

Are you familiar with this case???

Come on now, I am not that shallow. I have said many times that I'd be completely satisfied if:

1) The SCOTUS court ordered his vault copy.

2) They had it analyzed by forgery experts to assure its validity.

3) They wrote a formal request to the government of Kenya asking for verification that they have no record whatsoever of Obama's birth in Kenya.

4) The forgery analysis came back clean

5) SCOTUS proclaims Obama eligible.

That's all?



[edit on 8-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Wow, so I am speculating when I assume that a case needs to have some merit before it is referred to conference? WTF?

I would have loved for this case to be heard, simply so I could put it to rest in my mind, not all of yours. And BH, I don't know why you'd say that about me that you don't think I'd believe it even if the SCOTUS took the case? Come on now, I am not that shallow. I have said many times that I'd be completely satisfied if:

1) The SCOTUS court ordered his vault copy.

2) They had it analyzed by forgery experts to assure its validity.

3) They wrote a formal request to the government of Kenya asking for verification that they have no record whatsoever of Obama's birth in Kenya.

4) The forgery analysis came back clean

5) SCOTUS proclaims Obama eligible.

Done. End of story for me. That would be enough.

What you fail to see here is that the SCOTUS would then be questioning the validity of HAWAII officials to run their own business.

Basically HI said it was legit, and they most likely left it at that, lest they be seen as questioning the authority of HI Vital Stats.

I can't take any more of this Obama is not eligable for U.S. Presidency issue.....has anyone read the constitution article 2?

It states that the President must be a natural citizen and have been living in the U.S. for the last 14 years.

REGARDLESS of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii...IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! Why?

BECAUSE HIS MOTHER IS A U.S. CITIZEN!!!! Any child born to a U.S. citizen is automatically a U.S. citizen by birthright, regardless of where in the world the mother gives birth.

Are all of you people hung up on this issue serious? Don't just read the damn laws, understand what they mean.

Sorry for my tone, I just couldn't take anymore stupidity.

Doesn't matter where Os^hbama was born at this point, unless you're one of the kool-aid drinkers, his credibility is swirling down the toilet, his trustability is degrading by the day.

I didn't vote for him, but I figured I'd give him a chance, despite winning by a slim margin. Nowadays, I'm not so sure. Now if on the other hand, if it comes down to government wanting to pry into peoples past and he does the same thing for the 'people', then I might regain some respect for the man, but right now, nah, his credibility is shot.