Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Im sure I can, but why do all the work? your fingers aren't broken....google it!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
What year was Obama born? That's right, 60's. Source provided nothing for your argument.

I'm not talking about Obama. What I'm saying is that IF the governor had signed this bill into law, it would have prevented future candidates BORN IN ARIZONA from being a presidential candidate on the AZ ballot. Because AZ doesn't issue the "long form" that SB2177 calls for.

Seems like most people are thinking only Obama has to present his long form, but EVERY candidate, including Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann would have to present a LONG FORM. There's a REALLY good chance that some of them don't have a long form.

edit on 4/19/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

I agree, and misunderstood your line of questioning. my bad~

That's not how it works here. You make a claim, YOU provide the source. Did you notice how other people's posts have lots of source material with links and stuff? That's because we're making claims. You want people to believe you, YOU post the proof. It's not our job to prove you wrong or right.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's not how it works here. You make a claim, YOU provide the source. Did you notice how other people's posts have lots of source material with links and stuff? That's because we're making claims. You want people to believe you, YOU post the proof. It's not our job to prove you wrong or right.

I suggest re-reading page 4. I provided more than enough sources and links. It is YOU who choose what to read/believe. ( yeah, see how i did that )

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
The above quote suggests that your stating that the bill is asking for a specific format. According to HB 2177, they are simply suggesting that the Constitution be followed. Is that to much to ask? that the constitution be followed as it was written? ...

I think you attempted to make an argument of the " format", but clearly that is not the case.

I didn’t ‘attempt’ to make an argument, I made an argument, and you’re certainly free to find it unpersuasive. But this is what I asked you:

Originally posted by aptness
How is specifically requesting a “long form birth certificate” that includes the “signatures of any witnesses in attendance” not “looking for a particular format”?

Do you contest that the bill, in subsection B(1), asks for a “long form birth certificate” that “includes at least” the “signatures of any witnesses in attendance”?

Regarding your points about the bill ensuring “that the constitution be followed as it was written,” it seems to me the Constitution requires a person to be a natural born citizen, not that he or she is required to have witnesses in attendance of the birth, or to have a document with the signatures of those witnesses. Nor does the Constitution require someone to have a “long form birth certificate,” or a “baptismal or circumcision certificate.”

The relevant clause in Article II Section 1 stipulates, inter alia, that for someone to be eligible to the office of President he or she must be a natural born citizen and be at least 35 years of age. A short form birth certificate, that includes place and date of birth, is sufficient for these conditions. As is a US passport. Why aren’t these acceptable documents under the Arizona bill?

But, ultimately, why is only a long form birth certificate an acceptable document to ensure “that the constitution be followed as it was written”? You haven’t explained this.

reply to post by HabaneroPepper


But none of your sources address this claim:

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
The only thing that raises my eyebrow, is the very fact that in the 60's, ( knowing hawaii became a state in 59 ) didnt have the racial option " African American " back then. Thats the only thing that concerns me. The option available for race determination in the 60's was " Negro ".

Wow...You talking about 'shallow minds'...Your going to log over to Obama's FactCheck to get the truth?

Got some oceanside property up in Denver I need to unload

I guess you also use web sites run by Marxist 'felon' Soros, paid disciples , x & current members of the New Party @ MoveOn, Media Matters, St.Peters-PolitiFact, Fight The Smears, DailyKos,Huffington Post-AOL and snopes...
Wait..snopes did get it right,one time!
Snopes:Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama,was born in Kenya

See...Democrat terrorist are very confused people.

reply to post by aptness


i see what your saying. I obviously misunderstood what your were trying to depict. I agree with your second to last paragraph were you covered the legal documents as written in the constitution. I thought you were trying to argue that, that shouldnt be followed.

apologies

reply to post by truther357


Oh, for Christ's sake!! That is not the snopes website. That's a post from a discussion forum with a member called "snopes". The snopes website looks like this: www.snopes.com...

Here's the page from that discussion board.
message.snopes.com...

Beware of YouTube videos.
.

Originally posted by truther357
Wow...You talking about 'shallow minds'...Your going to log over to Obama's FactCheck to get the truth?

Got some oceanside property up in Denver I need to unload

I guess you also use web sites run by Marxist 'felon' Soros, paid disciples , x & current members of the New Party @ MoveOn, Media Matters, St.Peters-PolitiFact, Fight The Smears, DailyKos,Huffington Post-AOL and snopes...
Wait..snopes did get it right,one time!
Snopes:Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama,was born in Kenya

See...Democrat terrorist are very confused people.

edit on 19-4-2011 by truther357 because: Not enough pictures

well of course they are? Didn't you know, that those sources are there only means of debate?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Don't scan...Read it and watch the video's..Then post!
Then 'Document 'your belief's
We've got enough 'Talking Heads' on ATS....Just like their lying "Criminal-In -Chief" POUS...Talk the talk!

truther357’s post here is quite frankly unacceptable by ATS’ standards and the Terms & Conditions.

It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, it’s another thing to indiscriminately label and attack people with ad hominems, while simultaneously linking to misleading information.

I know this is the “US Political Madness” forum, but I’m pretty sure the rules still apply here.

Originally posted by truther357
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Don't scan...Read it and watch the video's..Then post!

I read the actual page on the message board. I don't need to see the propaganda in the video to know what's going on. Here are some other quotes from member 'snopes' in that thread.

Originally Posted by Tarquin Farquart View Post
he's a Muslim, he's the Anti-Christ, he's not really American...

A triple redundancy!

- snopes

As Stephen Colbert said, Obama "was supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, [so] that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!"

- snopes

Later on in the thread, he becomes serious.

I've been using a "Certificate of Live Birth" my whole life. Despite what the conspiracy loons claim, it's a perfectly legally acceptable document for obtaining driver's licenses, passports, Social Security numbers, etc.

But even if that were the case, the certificate of live birth would not state his birthplace to be Hawaii, as it does. The long form birth certificate might have more information than the certificate of live birth, but it won't have contradictory information, since the latter is based on data taken from the former.

Originally posted by aptness
truther357’s post here is quite frankly unacceptable by ATS’ standards and the Terms & Conditions.

It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, it’s another thing to indiscriminately label and attack people with ad hominems, while simultaneously linking to misleading information.

I know this is the “US Political Madness” forum, but I’m pretty sure the rules still apply here.

So because his views differ from yours, now you cry foul? Not a fan of opposing opinions I see.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
So because his views differ from yours, now you cry foul? Not a fan of opposing opinions I see.

My post is elucidative enough on why I find that member’s post to be unacceptable. I, respectfully, submit to you that perhaps you should read my post again. Also, you and me had opposing opinions earlier, did we not? Did I label or attack you? Did you?

If you still believe my comment was because I’m “not a fan of opposing opinions,” then there’s nothing more I can do, seeing as I can’t, and won’t, be more explicit on why object to that member’s post, and for believing the reasons were already self-evident.

There is more than enough proof of his birth certificate and even pictures of it, just not with the state seal on it because it is a copy.

Folks, if his birth certificate were really false, this would have come out a long time ago (and with PROOF). I don't like the guy, and I didn't vote for him, but I have to have enough faith in the vetting system to at least assume that the parties would be damn sure their candidates meet the Constitutional requirements for office.

Another matter may be dual citizenship. To my knowledge, I'm not sure if it's even addressed by the law. In my mind (and I'm sure our founding fathers'), you should be a citizen of the US and ONLY the US, to be President.

I believe the only thing the Constitution says is "natural born", but technically, a child of two parents (who are not US Citizens) could be born here, and that child could be President? The child would (by most nations) have dual citizenship. What about McCain? He was born in the Panama Canal area...so technically, was he even eligible to run? I never really looked into it much, but it's curious.

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's not how it works here. You make a claim, YOU provide the source. Did you notice how other people's posts have lots of source material with links and stuff? That's because we're making claims. You want people to believe you, YOU post the proof. It's not our job to prove you wrong or right.

I suggest re-reading page 4. I provided more than enough sources and links. It is YOU who choose what to read/believe. ( yeah, see how i did that )

I took the time to re-read page 4 as you suggested....no evidence or link that backs up your claim...

Originally posted by HabaneroPepper
The only thing that raises my eyebrow, is the very fact that in the 60's, ( knowing hawaii became a state in 59 ) didnt have the racial option " African American " back then. ... The option available for race determination in the 60's was " Negro "

Perhaps you can provide one? Or stop the BS?

Originally posted by Gazrok

Another matter may be dual citizenship. To my knowledge, I'm not sure if it's even addressed by the law. In my mind (and I'm sure our founding fathers'), you should be a citizen of the US and ONLY the US, to be President.

Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson's mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland.

What about McCain? He was born in the Panama Canal area...so technically, was he even eligible to run? I never really looked into it much, but it's curious.

edit on 19-4-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

He was born in Panama, Father stationed in the Panama canal zone.
A law was passed to afford children born to US citizens citizenship while working in the Canal Zone. The law did not specify "natural born" status.
The two big issues are that the Hospital he was born at was outside the Panama Canal zone and that the law regarding newborn citizenship was passed after he was born with no indication of it being retroactive.

Congress passed a resolution declaring him a "Natural Born Citizen"...ironically it was sponsored by Hillary Clinton and Sen. Obama

That is the short of it...links and details available on one of the recent birther threads.

reply to post by kro32


there is no us birth cert. for obama... a cert of live burith is not a birth cert. even hawaii does not accept it for
a birthj cert. except for obama.

Originally posted by Seeker-2406
reply to post by kro32

 

there is no us birth cert. for obama... a cert of live burith is not a birth cert. even hawaii does not accept it for
a birthj cert. except for obama.

Posts like this honestly confuse me. You are either proudly waving your "I am stupid flag" or the "I lie for fun" flag.

Either one is just robbing yourself of self respect and dignity. It just seems so self-abusive it confuses me.

I am open to being wrong...please provide some evidence that the State of Hawaii does not accept COLBs as proof of citizenship.