Originally posted by imsuchaniceguy

Originally posted by dooper

. You do know that he is president right? You have the electoral college as well as everyone who ran against him. They are all more clever than you and none of them are questioning it. So what does that tell you?

I can't speak for Dooper but yes I acknowledge that technically, Obama is POTUS...

But in response to your question, it tells me IMO that there are many in this country who are of the opinion that just because a man who happens to have more melanin in his skin than some and has a "silver tongue" with the miraculous ability to "assuage the masses" can provide some sort of "B.S." national "panacea" for many folks who harbor a deeply ingrained programmed "guilt" because of a deplorable time in this nation's history when dark skinned people were treated in a deplorable fashion.

I never owned ANY SLAVES!

I don't go around OPPRESSING people!

I FEEL ZERO GUILT FOR THE "PLIGHT" OF DEAD PEOPLE WHOM I NEVER WRONGED!

Why can't our President just provide the damn "original copy" of his B.C. and lay this thing to rest???????????????????????????

I don't like feeling this much doubt in the validity of our President's citizenship!!!

I was raised to respect the office of the President regardless of his "party affiliation" even if I disagree with certain policy choices that the man chooses to make!

Feel FREE to cast pathetic "flames" my way....

My soul has ever been and shall evermore be resilient to the "things of man"

bring it, if ya got it...........................................

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Lol, WhatTheory.

Laughing does not make you correct.

If this is what you want to do, is bring up old case law about natural-born citizens, fine by me.

There's an even older case then Wong Kim Ark.

Umm...why would you go by older rulings when the courts have more recent precedent. Silly Obama lover.

A. Who said laughing makes me right? I laugh at your ignorance. Lol!

B. That would be true, in most cases, except this one, seeing that the definition of a natural-born citizen is not clear. It hasn't been made clear in any law case. Wong Kim Ark did not prove it for you, WhatTheory.

And that was only due to the Chinese Exclusion Acts, not because of him being a natural-born citizen alone, like Lynch.

WhatTheory, you can't change the definition to what you want. Whether or not it now becomes clear because of what is happen, maybe it will.

Though, if it does, let me tell you this: it'll be placed that only one parent has to be an American citizen, not both of them.

Dude, all of your sources are from conservative blogs! Not one source you've used comes from a non-partisan website! Every website you've shown us in all of the threads have been from blogs and websites that don't want Obama as the president!

And your source states what senators thought at the time, not what was law.

So, your point is without merit.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Dude, all of your sources are from conservative blogs! Not one source you've used comes from a non-partisan website! Every website you've shown us in all of the threads have been from blogs and websites that don't want Obama as the president!

Ok, now you are just making stuff up because you cannot come to grips that your Messiah is not eligible to be President.
Plus it proves that you read nothing that other people post. Pathetic and sad.
Either that or you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

So, your point is without merit.

No, your OPINION is without merit.
I really think you are intentionally not accepting the truth because your brain cannot comprehend the reality of this situation.

Am I? Am I making it up? Or are you only able to pull material from websites that believe Obama's not the president? You've been pulling information from blogs, which is not a good way for information to be retrieved.

And I am right, aren't I? It was the senator's opinion of what a natural-born citizen meant, not what was law. So, why did it matter for you to post it up? This wasn't some case law. It was a senator's opinion.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Am I? Am I making it up?

Yes, you are wrong. How many times do I have to say it. Geesh!

Or are you only able to pull material from websites that believe Obama's not the president?

The link I posted in my previous post had nothing to do with Obama so again, YES, you are wrong and clearly not reading or comprehending anything.

You've been pulling information from blogs, which is not a good way for information to be retrieved.

Some were blogs with links directly proving what they are saying and links directly to court rulings and links directly to official government sites.

Again, you are wrong and only proving that you are not reading and following links. Either that or you really do have reading comprehension problems.

And I am right, aren't I?[

Umm...you aren't as I just stated above.

It was the senator's opinion of what a natural-born citizen meant, not what was law. So, why did it matter for you to post it up? This wasn't some case law. It was a senator's opinion.

Not true! You keep embarrassing yourself by not understand what you are reading. First of all, the link you are refering to mentioned most of Congress and NOT just one senator's opinion. Secondly, IF you would even bother to read the entire article instead of just one paragraph, you will see that is the truth and backed up by actual quotes.

I'm done with you because it's apparent you will not read anything or have trouble with comprehension. Either way, I'm tired of beating a dead horse.

Dude, I could care less if quotes are involved. Having quotes of his opinion, of the opinions of most of congress from the middle of the 1800's means absolutely nothing. It's still an opinion.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
Dude, I could care less

Dude, Dude, who are you? A surfer?
Perhaps that is your problem. You don't care.

Having quotes of his opinion, of the opinions of most of congress from the middle of the 1800's means absolutely nothing. It's still an opinion.

You keep proving that you did not read the entire article. You just don't get it. ** SIGH **

Ok, I'm done with you. There is no hope with even having a conversation because you refuse to read.

Stop quoting a few words from one of my sentences and making fun of it... Just stay on topic about the debate, not about the fact I used the word "dude."

Come on...

And I read the article. It's still an opinion of the congressmen at that time, and it's still an opinion to this date.

There is no clear definition. You said so yourself. As such, you can't fill in what the definition is.

[edit on 25/7/09 by Mak Manto]

Originally posted by Mak Manto
There is no clear definition. You said so yourself. As such, you can't fill in what the definition is.

It is clear. The problem is that it's clear in different ways to different people. I believe all the links I provided prove he is not eligible because either the father must be a citizen or both parents must be a citizen.

You read the same material and believe differently. It's all interpretation.

I guess this will not be resolved here on ATS until the supreme court rules on the definition and makes it perfectly clear. All they are going to do is interpret the same material. I guess Congress could step in and create some legislation to define it or we could go through the process to amend the Constitution.

Finally, we can agree on something.

The Supreme Court must come in and apply a definition to what being a natural-born citizen is. The debate will not stop until it happens