Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

topic posted Fri, June 26, 2009 - 9:11 AM by  offlineDan
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Says case will be expedited when representation lined up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 26, 2009
12:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A judge hearing one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has taken the unusual step of describing the dispute as a serious constitutional issue and further has begun adding letters of comment from the public to the court record.

Word of the action by U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider in Camden, N.J., comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the Kerchner vs. Obama case.

Apuzzo filed his lawsuit in January on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure in Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."


The Constitution provides, the lawsuit said, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

Get the Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements," the lawsuit said.

Apuzzo told WND that while the judge recently granted the government extra time to line up defense counsel for the named defendants, his ruling described the issue as a serious constitutional question.

"Plaintiffs' complaint raises significant issues necessitating that the named defendants engage competent counsel to represent their interests. Given the high ranking positions of the defendants, the decision as to who will represent them in this case is not simple and straightforward," the judge said.

But as soon as attorneys are lined up, "the case will proceed expeditiously," he said.

The case has attracted numerous public comments directed at and delivered to the judge, who has started adding them to the case file, Apuzzo noted.

"It's unbelievable," he said. "The court put the letters on Pacer."

Pacer is a fee-based court website through which interested parties can research cases and their documentation.

"This is really strange," said the attorney, noting that judges typically do not accept or even acknowledge public commentary on cases that are pending before them.

"The point is the letters are there in the docket," he said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.


Apuzzo, on his website, says the issue "is of utmost national importance."

A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a foreign birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born.

While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations "garbage," the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.


Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.


Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.


In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.


Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.


In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.


In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

wnd.com/index.php
posted by:
Dan
online Dan
Indiana
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

    Fri, June 26, 2009 - 9:32 AM
    A magistrate judge, eh?

    Do you know what a magistrate judge is? Of course you do not.

    They work for the federal district judge. The federal district judge delegates stuff to the magistrate that the district judge doesn't want to be bothered with or doesn't have time for.

    Any orders issued by the magistrate are subject to the district judge's approval.

    It's not really that big a deal that the magistrate is all excited. Magistrates are often eager for something like this, because usually the district judges keep the interesting cases to themselves and let the magistrates deal with the boring and routine.

    It kinda tells you what the district judge thinks of this case, that he is letting the magistrate handle it.

    The magistrate spoke. Whatever. Big *yawn.*
    • Dan
      Dan
      online 8

      Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

      Fri, June 26, 2009 - 10:04 AM
      first you write off an attorney in California because she is also a "stupid" dentist on the side. Now you write off a judge because he is lower on the totem pole than a federal or supreme court judge. What are you going to say when a Federal judge says something similar? I am sure you will have a new, sillier, argument. It doesn't matter, Thousands of people, including high profile folks want an answer, and they will eventually get it, the opinion of an obsure law clerk notwithstanding.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Mon, June 29, 2009 - 8:56 AM
        first you write off an attorney in California because she is also a "stupid" dentist on the side.

        --not because she was a dentist, but because she was a hack who couldn't even get into an accredited law school (which ain't that hard, there are almost 200 of them in the US, and the bottom tier law schools are not selective.

        Now you write off a judge because he is lower on the totem pole than a federal or supreme court judge.

        ---didn't write him off, just putting "magistrate" in context.

        What are you going to say when a Federal judge says something similar?

        ---Ha ha. Hasn't happened yet.

        I am sure you will have a new, sillier, argument.

        ---Actually, I wasn't making an argument. It was just an observation.

        It doesn't matter, Thousands of people, including high profile folks want an answer, and they will eventually get it,

        ---and the answer will be, once again "case dismissed."

        the opinion of an obsure law clerk notwithstanding.

        ---I am not a law clerk, store clerk, file clerk, or any kind of clerk. I am a retired public school superintendent, and a former CIA agent.
        • Dan
          Dan
          online 8

          Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

          Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:44 AM
          Dan: first you write off an attorney in California because she is also a "stupid" dentist on the side.

          --not because she was a dentist, but because she was a hack who couldn't even get into an accredited law school (which ain't that hard, there are almost 200 of them in the US, and the bottom tier law schools are not selective.

          I know of no evidence that "she couldn't get in to an accredited law school". But I do know that this is not the issue here. The issue is Obama's eligibility, not a private citizens credentials for demanding that a sitting president be legally seated. I have dealt with many lawyers from accredited law schools who are complete imbeciles. I went to court recently with one and represented myself as the defendent. Now I have no law degree, but I can read a contract and the contract the plaintiff had signed clearly stated that the venue for any court case was in Fulton County Georgia, yet his attorney tried to bring suit in a different county and state. In addition, My company was not named on the contract so he was bringing suit against the wrong person! Of course I pointed this fact out to the "accredited attorney". As a result, the case was dismissed without prejudice. The point being that attorneys are are accredited can be jackasses, like this one was and dentists who received their degrees from unacredited sources may be as sharp as a tack. Personally, I know that a lot more dentists could become lawyers than vice versa!

          Dan: Now you write off a judge because he is lower on the totem pole than a federal or supreme court judge.

          ---didn't write him off, just putting "magistrate" in context.

          We all know that those concerned about this issue face an incredible uphill battle. Yet the facts of the case are on their side, just as they were on the side of those fighting for Clintons impeachment, and no one thought this was going to happen either.
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

            Fri, July 17, 2009 - 8:26 PM
            We are always hearing Dan boast of his prowess in defending himself in the courtroom.

            First, he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

            Second, lay people who find themselves in so frequent legal trouble that they are regulars in the court house and are stupid enough to brag about it really are fools.

            Dan, you're a schumck and an armchair lawyer. But mostly, just an incredibly tedious, socially retarded, pedantic bore.

            Get the hell off tribe and get yourself to a shrink. You need therapy.
            • Dan
              Dan
              online 8

              Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

              Sat, July 18, 2009 - 7:17 AM
              "We are always hearing Dan boast of his prowess in defending himself in the courtroom.

              First, he who represents himself has a fool for a client."

              well then, this fool just got his speeding ticket dismissed, along with two lawsuits, and those were in the last month. Yet a good attorney can be useful on occasion, and I am using one now to collect some debts for me. I cannot imagine why anyone would use your services, which explains why you spend all of your time on the internet under multiple avatars.

              "Second, lay people who find themselves in so frequent legal trouble that they are regulars in the court house and are stupid enough to brag about it really are fools."

              not necessarily. Many people have reasons to find themselves in court frequently. I happen to own a financial services company and deal with a lot of clients. I have to collect debts and sometimes get sued. Considering the fact that I deal with a large number of businesses, my involvement in lawsuits is rather small. I am not in any real legal trouble.

              "Dan, you're a schumck and an armchair lawyer. But mostly, just an incredibly tedious, socially retarded, pedantic bore."

              what is tedious and boring is your relentless trolling and "spoofing".

              "Get the hell off tribe and get yourself to a shrink. You need therapy. "

              thanks for the invitation, but I will respectfully decline.
  • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

    Fri, June 26, 2009 - 5:59 PM
    Always interesting how apparently no one gave a shit about Obama's citizenship when he was a Senator. I guess eligibility "disputes" aren't "serious" unless your party loses the election.

    Would you like some french cries with your waaaaaahmburger?
    • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

      Tue, June 30, 2009 - 12:12 PM
      I've always wondered why so many people have their knickers in a knot over this non-issue. Why haven't there been serious charges and suits brought against the Bush Administration for very serious violations of the Constitution such as lying to go to war in Iraq.

      Besides in this case the magistrate appears to be a media whore.
      • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Tue, June 30, 2009 - 12:52 PM
        << I've always wondered why so many people have their knickers in a knot over this non-issue.>>>

        Deb, the *last* Democratic president was impeached over a blowjob.

        Compared to that, *this* bit of paranoid fantasy is almost mature and dignified.
        • Dan
          Dan
          online 8

          Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

          Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:47 AM
          "Deb, the *last* Democratic president was impeached over a blowjob.

          Compared to that, *this* bit of paranoid fantasy is almost mature and dignified."


          He was impeached for perjury. I thought you said you read?
          • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

            Thu, July 9, 2009 - 12:25 PM
            << He was impeached for perjury. >>

            Over a blowjob.

            I thought you said *you* could read, bunkie. The papers were full of seamy details and stained dresses there for a while. Damn little did America's wingnut sunshine patriots reckon in those days over Osama and threats to America bigger than Ms. Lewinsky's mouth.
            • Dan
              Dan
              online 8

              Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

              Thu, July 9, 2009 - 1:34 PM
              "Over a blowjob."

              for lying under oath in the Jones litigation trial and for urging Lewinski to fill a false affidavit. Had the President admitted to an affair, he would not have been impeached, so it is incorrect to say it was over a "blow job". Yet being accurate is not your strong suit.

              "I thought you said *you* could read, bunkie."

              Here again you fail to be accurate. It was you who has claimed in other threads that you are a reader, implying that you are somehow unique in this regard.
              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                Thu, July 9, 2009 - 3:49 PM
                << for lying under oath in the Jones litigation trial >>

                Over a blowjob.

                I love how you poor fish still try to gloss over that. I guess it sounds A LOT more impressive and less sordid than the wingnut keyhole peeping and sheet-sniffing that comprised the whole, um, "crime."

                << litigation trial >>

                Isn't this redundant? Kind of like "oral sex blowjob"...
                • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                  Thu, July 9, 2009 - 4:47 PM
                  It was over a blowjob. Perjury over a blowjob does not warrant attention. Of congress
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Dan
                    Dan
                    online 8

                    Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                    Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:11 PM
                    A simple internet search will reveal the basis of the articles of impeachment, but you prefer to remain in ignorance, and I cannot see any reason to rescue you.
                    • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                      Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:30 PM
                      << A simple internet search will reveal the basis of the articles of impeachment >>

                      Over a blowjob.

                      If you wanna natter on about "perjury" and "obstruction of (sic) justice" without the slightest clue of what you're jabbering about, at least educate yourself as to the facts of Clinton's, er, "crime".
                      • Dan
                        Dan
                        online 8

                        Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                        Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:56 PM
                        actually, I have educated myself and what I have stated is factual. You were simply trying to be cute by stating "blowjob" for presumably some kind of shock or titilating value. I am really not sure. But here is a draft of the articles:

                        edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITIC...icles.docs/

                        An oral sex affair was not the reason for his impeachment. Lying to a Grand Jury was. Encourage others to lie was. These articles include much more than his relationship with Lewinski. He perjured himself in the Paula Jones case as well. He was a compromised president and as such a danger to the republic, just as is Obama.
                        • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                          Fri, July 10, 2009 - 3:20 PM
                          again, it was lying about a blow job.
                          • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                            Sat, July 11, 2009 - 10:14 AM
                            << You were simply trying to be cute by stating "blowjob" for presumably some kind of shock or titilating value >>

                            I was being serious, since I don't have to *try* to be cute. Years of GOP investigation and magazine ink (mostly subsidized by a single screwloose right-wing billionaire) yielded naught but a blowjob, so Republicans in Congress impeached him over it.

                            That's, as they say, entertainment.

                            << He was a compromised president and as such a danger to the republic>>

                            Because he got a blowjob?
                            • Dan
                              Dan
                              online 8

                              Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                              Wed, July 15, 2009 - 4:48 AM
                              "I was being serious, since I don't have to *try* to be cute"

                              trust me, you are wrong on this point.
                              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                Wed, July 15, 2009 - 2:18 PM
                                << trust me, you are wrong on this point. >>

                                Oh, I so DO *trust* your disinterested opinion as expressed from behind a Tribe bedsheet for free on the Internet.

                                It's just an immense number of eyewitness reports to the contrary causes me to reject your assertion out-of-hand as unlikely.

                                No offense.

                                :-D
                                • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                  Sat, July 18, 2009 - 6:22 AM
                                  Dan, trust me, I am one of those eyewitness reporters who would reject any assertion of yours challenging Rockstar's capacity for cute, sexy and intellectual. Besides his capacity for being a charming southern gentleman.

                                  You could hold a candle in the dark a hundred feet from this man yet when he stepped into the path of your argument with his brilliance you'd still be blinded and your candle snuffed out.

                                  If you don't know, don't make it up. I know this man - you, Dan don't stand a chance.
                                  • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                    Sat, July 18, 2009 - 1:18 PM
                                    << You could hold a candle in the dark a hundred feet from this man yet when he stepped into the path of your argument with his brilliance you'd still be blinded and your candle snuffed out. >>

                                    I blush, madame.

                                    *bows*

                                    Hope to see you at BRC.

                                    Though I'm tempted to, I won't argue with her description, because only fools and the doomed argue with Deb.
                                • Dan
                                  Dan
                                  online 8

                                  Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                  Sat, July 18, 2009 - 7:19 AM
                                  "It's just an immense number of eyewitness reports to the contrary causes me to reject your assertion out-of-hand as unlikely."

                                  eyewitness reports of what? Certainly not Obama's Hawaiian Hospital birth, that is for sure.

                                  "No offense."

                                  none taken
                                  • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                    Sat, July 18, 2009 - 1:10 PM
                                    << eyewitness reports of what? >>

                                    My dazzling cuteness that was such an issue with you a couple of posts ago. Pay attention. Christians shouldn't be doing bong-hits at such an hour on Saturday morning.

                                    << Obama's Hawaiian Hospital birth >>

                                    Attended, if legend is to be believed, by three kings, a few sheepherders, some Shepard Fairies, a big pulsating Day-Glo green smear in the sky, and Sen. Hubert Humphrey, whose extended remarks to wife Muriel are thankfully unrecorded by history.
                                    • B
                                      B
                                      offline 120

                                      Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                      Sat, July 18, 2009 - 6:29 PM
                                      <Attended, if legend is to be believed, by three kings, a few sheepherders, some Shepard Fairies, a big pulsating Day-Glo green smear in the sky, and Sen. Hubert Humphrey, whose extended remarks to wife Muriel are thankfully unrecorded by history.>

                                      That was pretty good actually.
      • Dan
        Dan
        online 8

        Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:46 AM
        "I've always wondered why so many people have their knickers in a knot over this non-issue"

        Only because we are a nation of laws which apply to everyone..

        "Why haven't there been serious charges and suits brought against the Bush Administration for very serious violations of the Constitution such as lying to go to war in Iraq."

        Because all but a few whacked out liberal know that such a case would be all but impossible to prove.
    • Dan
      Dan
      online 8

      Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

      Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:21 AM
      Questions about Obama's eligibility predated his election. The issue drew more attention in his presidential campaign (including from members of his own party), because he now came under national scrutiny. Yet it should have been looked at prior to this. A bill in congress is now demanding that this be done on all candidates going forward as a matter of law, and it is about time.

      Obama's eligibility would not be of any concern to his opponents had he provided proof of his natural born citizenship when challenged. That he chose to avoid it, provide a COLB rather than a long form Birth Certificate showing the hospital of his birth and the attending physician, is why so many are outraged. To compound matters there is evidence that he was born in Mombassa Kenya, which means he is definitely ineligible. It should not matter what political stance we take in regards to this issue. If Reagan would have been born in a foreign country, I would not have wanted him as president either. The same for Arnold. The issue is the constitution requires Natural born citizenship and Obama is not one. He knows it, you know it and so do an increasing number of alarmed Americans.
      • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:45 AM
        Dan - most of us are getting tired of your ceaseless inane bloativating.

        You keep whipping the same dead horse till there is nothing but a grease spot in the road.

        No matter how long you do the horse is not going to get up and carry the load. It has been settled and by SCOTUS itself.

        As Forrest pointed out in an earlier post - origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/doc....htm

        You claim to be about the truth Dan. Hows this for the truth - your a bigot. Its as simple as that. Your nothing but a bigot and you can't accept that the country has grown up while you still live in an infantile fantasy world.

        I now challenge the rest of the tribe to do as I intend to do - ignore Dan. He is nothing but a minuscule troll. To even acknowledge him is to give him credence.

        From now on I will treat Dan as what he is - that annoying little mosquito that you can't quite swat.
        • Dan
          Dan
          online 8

          Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

          Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:59 AM
          what is getting old are your metaphors Joe. Forrest is probably intelligent enough to know that the case by berg was dismissed without hearing the merits of the case. This kind of thing happens all of the time. It doesn't mean that Obama is eligible, nor did the supremes state such a thing. I know this, I think Forrest knows this, but the question is, do you?

          "You claim to be about the truth Dan. Hows this for the truth - your a bigot. Its as simple as that. Your nothing but a bigot and you can't accept that the country has grown up while you still live in an infantile fantasy world."

          But this is not the truth Joe, it is a lie. Either you are trying to slander me or you are deluded to believe that my motives are suspect because I am not a leftie like you. In either case, you are employing fallacious reasoning and should apologise.

          "I now challenge the rest of the tribe to do as I intend to do - ignore Dan. He is nothing but a minuscule troll. To even acknowledge him is to give him credence."

          I am fine with you ignoring me Joe, but you should know that this has been tried before, and failed. I can only assume it is because I am irresistable!

          "From now on I will treat Dan as what he is - that annoying little mosquito that you can't quite swat."

          If you would like to give me a swat, I suggest you bring your liberal butt over to Madison Indiana where I live. You may PM me and you and I can meet for some "swatting". If that is not something you would like to do, then stop your silly rhetoric and deal with issues and ideas, not people
      • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Thu, July 9, 2009 - 12:30 PM
        << Questions about Obama's eligibility >>

        From idiots.

        << predated his election >>

        Well, that's what idiots *do*, Dan. They ask idiot questions and annoy people.

        << To compound matters there is evidence that he was born in Mombassa Kenya, which means he is definitely ineligible. >>

        Present proof, please.
        • Dan
          Dan
          online 8

          Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

          Thu, July 9, 2009 - 1:37 PM
          "Well, that's what idiots *do*, Dan. They ask idiot questions and annoy people."

          I am curious how you could define idiot in any meaningful way without including yourself.

          << To compound matters there is evidence that he was born in Mombassa Kenya, which means he is definitely ineligible. >>

          "Present proof, please."

          Note, I didn't write "proof", I wrote "evidence". And it is in the form of sworn affidavits and readily available to idiots and non the world over.
          • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

            Thu, July 9, 2009 - 3:46 PM
            << I am curious how you could define idiot in any meaningful way without including yourself. >>

            Look in the mirror.

            << Note, I didn't write "proof", I wrote "evidence".>>

            That's a poor excuse for not providing any of either. Let's see evidence of what convinced you.
            • Dan
              Dan
              online 8

              Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

              Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:10 PM
              << I am curious how you could define idiot in any meaningful way without including yourself. >>

              Rocksinthehead: Look in the mirror.

              Oh, I see, you look in the mirror and then project what you see to others. I thought it was something like that.
              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'surreal'

                Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:24 PM
                << I thought it was something like that. >>

                You *thought* something?

                Hot damn! Are your keepers aware of this breakthrough? This is worth at least a spread in "Zoology Today"!

                Evidence of Obama's ineligibility or STFU, please.
            • Dan
              Dan
              online 8

              Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

              Fri, July 10, 2009 - 1:47 PM
              "Let's see evidence of what convinced you."

              I am convinced that Obama has lied about his birth place for many reasons. One reason is because he has steadfastly refused to release his long form birth certificate demonstrating his claim to have been born in Kapi'olani medical center as has been claimed. In addition, there is more than one hospital where he was supposedly born!?? How did he pull this off?

              www.wnd.com/index.php

              In addition, His Step Grandmother claims to have been present at his birth, in Mombassa Kenya! Two Priests have provided sworn affidavits stating that in taped conversation that this is what she told them. This tape is posted on youtube:

              www.youtube.com/watch

              When you confront a person about their claims, and they produce no evidence to support their claims but a short form certificate of live birth which could be obtained in Hawaii by foreign born people during the time of his birth, you know they have something to hide. Obama has had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that he was born in Hawaii by releasing the long form BC, but he has not done so. All of his supporters here know he has not done so, but they continue to attack those who question, "why not"? I find this amusing. Don't liberals care about the constitution? They claim that they do, but their actions here speak volumes.

              The burden of proof is on Obama. Produce a valid long form Certification and the issue dies. Keep obfuscating and the issue grows. It is up to him. But I am convinced he is lieing and does not have it because he was born outside the country and therefore illegal holding the office of presidency.
              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                Sat, July 11, 2009 - 10:57 AM
                <<I am convinced that Obama has lied about his birth place for many reasons. One reason is because he has steadfastly refused to release his long form birth certificate demonstrating his claim to have been born in Kapi'olani medical center as has been claimed.>>

                Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

                Why am I, the atheist, telling you the alleged Christian this?

                <<When you confront a person about their claims, and they produce no evidence to support their claims but a short form certificate of live birth which could be obtained in Hawaii by foreign born people during the time of his birth, you know they have something to hide.>>

                I really enjoy how you started off trying to state a generalized rule but then slipped into just repeating your argument. Your reasoning is circular and you try to run away from it... but like a hamster in a wheel, the faster you run the more it all just spins around your head.
                • Dan
                  Dan
                  online 8

                  Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                  Wed, July 15, 2009 - 4:53 AM
                  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

                  Actually, this is false. Absence of evidence and avoidance of evidence IS evidence of absence. Obama has no support for his eligibility and is avoiding providing it. In addition, he is required under the constitution to provide qualifying evidence or step down until such evidence is provided.

                  "Why am I, the atheist, telling you the alleged Christian this? "

                  I don't know why an atheist would attempt to tell anybody anything. An atheist doesn't know for sure that the rules of logic are true, so in all truth, he should just keep his mouth shut!

                  <<When you confront a person about their claims, and they produce no evidence to support their claims but a short form certificate of live birth which could be obtained in Hawaii by foreign born people during the time of his birth, you know they have something to hide.>>

                  "I really enjoy how you started off trying to state a generalized rule but then slipped into just repeating your argument. Your reasoning is circular and you try to run away from it... but like a hamster in a wheel, the faster you run the more it all just spins around your head."

                  I have provided evidence the Mr. Obama was born in Mombassa Kenya. Whether this makes him eligible or not, is for the courts/congress to decide. But at the least, it is evidence that he has lied to the American People, and this lie will undermine his presidency.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                    Wed, July 15, 2009 - 9:39 AM
                    <<I don't know why an atheist would attempt to tell anybody anything. An atheist doesn't know for sure that the rules of logic are true, so in all truth, he should just keep his mouth shut! >>

                    Nah I think I'll continue to mock you while you flail in utter impotence.
                    • Dan
                      Dan
                      online 8

                      Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                      Sat, July 18, 2009 - 6:37 AM
                      "Nah I think I'll continue to mock you while you flail in utter impotence. "

                      Utter impotence? I have 10 children, I can't be impotent!:-)
                      • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                        Sat, July 18, 2009 - 7:59 AM
                        If you really do have 10 children, I feel sorry for them and perhaps their mother(s).
                        • Dan
                          Dan
                          online 8

                          Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                          Sat, July 18, 2009 - 9:38 AM
                          nice insult Dave, but what about the long form birth certificate? Why is he refusing to offer it do you think? What obligation, under the constittution do you feel Obama has to prove his eligibility? If it is found that he is lieing about his U.S. birth, how would you feel about his presidency? If it is determined that he is not a natural born citizen, would you still support him or not?
                          • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                            Sat, July 18, 2009 - 6:55 PM
                            <<nice insult Dave, but what about the long form birth certificate? Why is he refusing to offer it do you think? What obligation, under the constittution do you feel Obama has to prove his eligibility?>>

                            Why do you think there is no credible legal argument to support your claim? Why do you think it gets tossed out?

                            The Supreme Court in on the conspiracy too? Do tell your explanation. I could use a good laugh. There are only a few possibilities you could answer with, all of them idiotic, I'm playing a game with myself to see which one you wind up going with.

                            <<If it is found that he is lieing about his U.S. birth, how would you feel about his presidency? If it is determined that he is not a natural born citizen, would you still support him or not?>>

                            See, it wouldn't just be him lying about it - it'd be half the bloody country. Just like with the Truthers, you Birthers have the problem that for your conspiracy theory to work, way too many people would have to be way too good at keeping secrets. Not to mention that your every argument is a logical fallacy, as has been pointed out every time you blurt it out.
                            But don't let this bit of logic prevent you from posting more sniveling imbecility or anything.
                            • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                              Sat, July 18, 2009 - 9:12 PM
                              The real scary truth that comes out of this thread is that it forecasts the end game for the world.

                              Christian fundamentalists such as Dan (or whatever his name is) are reproducing like rabbits. The intelligent ones among us have one or two children, if we have any. Soon we will be outnumbered.

                              Maybe the end game is the Christian fundamentalists against the Muslim fundamentalists who are also breeding like rabbits.
                              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                                Sat, July 18, 2009 - 11:29 PM
                                The idea that the intelligent (superior) are not breeding enough and that the unwashed inferiors (Dan) are breeding too much. Well, this isn't a new worry - or trend. I would say that this is a trend throughout all human history. Intelligent ones focus on selection and breeding quality - others focus on mass production. Two viable reproduction strategies, never has one eclipsed the other totally.

                                It isn't just birth rates. Sure, someone like Dan might be able to squeeze out a dozen brats - he certainly has room in his orifices - but will they all survive and thrive? What about when the cards are on the table, when survival is an issue, when it's not just possible to graze the herd at McDonald's and suck up welfare checks and rape altar boys for fun - can they cope with more intelligent competitors? History shows that no, they can't, at least not the degree you are suggesting. Your one child will wind up being at least the equal of Dan's whole alleged brood.

                                And there's one thing else that's changed - human cloning, genetic engineering. Fundies aren't going to want to touch any of that shit any more than they're down for birth control or oral hygiene. Let's see them outnumber my motherfucking clone army!
                      • Re: Paternity dispute is 'serious'...

                        Sat, July 18, 2009 - 1:34 PM
                        >> I have 10 children, I can't be impotent! >>

                        Well, *someone* in your vicinity isn't.

                        "When daisies pied and violets blue
                        And lady-smocks all silver white
                        And cuckoo-buds of yellow hue
                        Do paint the meadows with delight,
                        The cuckoo then on every tree
                        Mocks married men, for thus sings he:
                        'Cuckoo, cuckoo - O word of fear,
                        Unpleasing to a married ear!"

                        - William Shakespeare
                        Love's Labours Lost, Act 5, sc. 2
                • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                  Fri, July 24, 2009 - 5:27 PM
                  <<Your reasoning is circular and you try to run away from it... but like a hamster in a wheel, the faster you run the more it all just spins around your head. >>


                  LOL. the Birthers are about as logical as the Truthers. Perhaps the birthers and Truthers can get together and see if they can generate an IQ higher than 1
              • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                Sat, July 11, 2009 - 10:57 AM
                << I am convinced that Obama has lied about his birth place for many reasons. >>

                Reason # 1: He's a sitting Democratic president.

                The rest of the world would have just a WHOLE lot more respect for you "conservatives" if you'd simply state your first principles in front before dumping this malarkey.

                << One reason is because he has steadfastly refused to release his long form birth certificate demonstrating his claim to have been born in Kapi'olani medical center >>

                So you regard this as credible evidence for *any* fevered speculation that Obama was born in Kenya, the USSR or the moon? This kind of detective work puts the "dick" in "Dick Tracy"!

                << In addition, there is more than one hospital where he was supposedly born!?? How did he pull this off? >>>

                Roller skates?

                << When you confront a person about their claims, and they produce no evidence to support their claims but a short form certificate of live birth

                Oh dear. What did SCOTUS *do* when confronted with this commie-rat conspiracy?

                << I find this amusing. >>

                You aren't alone, hoss.

                << Don't liberals care about the constitution? >>

                *What* liberals?

                << The burden of proof is on Obama. >>

                No, the burden of proof is on THOSE ASSERTING THE CLAIM. Stop playing three-card monte with the rules. It doesn't inspire confidence in the intellectual honesty of, um, "conservatives."

                << the issue grows >>

                Into the biggest wingnut laff-fest since water fluoridation or those messages from Satan y'all found on old Twisted Sister albums.

                << But I am convinced he is lieing >>

                See # 1 above. Repeat as necessary.

                For anyone's interested, Factcheck.org did an investigation on this-
                www.factcheck.org/elections...e_usa.html
                • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

                  Fri, July 24, 2009 - 5:29 PM
                  << the issue grows >>

                  Into the biggest wingnut laff-fest since water fluoridation or those messages from Satan y'all found on old Twisted Sister albums. >>



                  ROFLMAO! You left out chemtrails! Don't forget Kiss is really Knights in Satan's Service

                  LOL
  • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

    Tue, June 30, 2009 - 6:30 PM
    Usually the fact that this comes from the WorldNutDaily is enough to tell me that it is bad information, not to mention that it was Dan who posted this, but I am going to add this link that goes into details about Obama's birth certificate.
    • Dan
      Dan
      online 8

      Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

      Thu, July 9, 2009 - 9:51 AM
      "Usually the fact that this comes from the WorldNutDaily is enough to tell me that it is bad information, not to mention that it was Dan who posted this, but I am going to add this link that goes into details about Obama's birth certificate."

      I feel similarly about the Washington Post, but didn't reject findings by one of their reporters who brought down Nixon. WND may not be your favorite news source, but it is not always wrong simply because you don't like their line up of columnists. The issue is Obama's eligibility and his refusal to provide the documentation necessary to clear it up. Shooting the messenger will not make the problem go away.
      • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

        Thu, July 9, 2009 - 12:42 PM
        << I feel similarly about the Washington Post >>

        Which is the *exact* same thing as distrusting a maniac's clearinghouse like WND. Ask anybody.

        << one of their reporters who brought down Nixon. >>

        It was actually TWO of their reporters. No final round of Jeopardy! for *you*

        << but it is not always wrong simply because you don't like their line up of columnists. >>

        What if Tedster doesn't like WND simply because it's often wrong, fucked-up and reads like designer toilet paper?
        • Re: Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'

          Thu, July 9, 2009 - 12:47 PM
          >Which is the *exact* same thing as distrusting a maniac's clearinghouse like WND. Ask anybody.

          << one of their reporters who brought down Nixon. >>

          It was actually TWO of their reporters. No final round of Jeopardy! for *you*

          << but it is not always wrong simply because you don't like their line up of columnists. >>

          What if Tedster doesn't like WND simply because it's often wrong, fucked-up and reads like designer toilet paper? <

          Please stop feeding the troll.
          • Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

            Sun, July 19, 2009 - 12:41 PM
            I consider use of the phrase "Please stop feeding the troll" - and all such similar phrases - roughly six times as obnoxious and offensive as anything Dan eructs; he simply states his opinions. That they are retarded, uninformed, xenophobic, and generally hate-fueled opinions is immaterial;

            it's when the name-calling and attributions of intent come up that I actually get offended,

            so try, do, not to make me defend freakin' *Dan* of all people, and make less of a habit of pretending you can identify "trolls" as being the people you don't like to read the opinions of. It's demeaning to you and disrespectful to all other readers.

            If you really must criticize or ostracize another member of the forum, do it with your own wit and excellence, without recourse to vague and empty epithets such as "troll". It degrades the forum and encourages the person in question to behave even more stupidly. Calling these people names empowers the stupider and alienates those who are simply people with whom you disagree - not "trolls" trying to get your imaginary goat, but just people you don't *agree* with.

            Learn the distinction. We can start throwing "bigot" and "nazi" around if you're seriously attached to calling people "troll" - probably not the most enlightened climate for political discussion, though, right? My last look at POLITICS revealed a cesspit crawling with fleas and the word "troll" -

            - which brings me to: can't you people even get the use of the epithet right? It's like walking up to a translucent polish guy and screaming "you goddamn Puerto Rican!" when you accuse a low-shelf nitwit (with nothing more exciting in mind than a typical fake-conservative / fake-outrage agenda) of being a magical evil monster.

            Dan, historically speaking, has been a target, not a marksman. That he's got beliefs human beings find execrable aside from their self-contradictory absurdity is beside the point entirely. As citizens of the larger world we must all take advantage of the opportunity to see how this man supplants "thinking" with... what he does. This can help us all, as readers, to understand the "thought" processes of the maniacal, incompetent, uneducated, lunatic, frightened, and generally dimwitted herd we share the planet with.

            Calling Dan "troll" is like calling Obama "vicious bloodthirsty African sorcerer" - totally absurd by dint of overstatement, inappropriate in most venues, and a waste of strong language.
            • Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

              Sun, July 19, 2009 - 4:24 PM
              I fear I must differ on this.

              By the classic definition Dan is very much a troll:

              "An Internet troll is someone who posts offensive, controversial, or divisive material on an Internet community. Trolls are an unfortunately common occurrence on many communities across the Internet, and there are various steps which can be taken to combat them. If you are currently struggling with an Internet troll, the best thing to do is to walk away, since trolls feed on attention, and they will usually disappear if they are ignored."

              www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a...-troll.htm

              He will vanish for a while only to come back and post items that are meant to do nothing but inflame and draw attention to Dan.

              I don't know if he actually believes what he posts - for that matter I have no idea what sort of psychopathology drives Dan I just know that his posts have become more hateful and bigoted over time.

              Not only in this thread but others he has shown his true colors and they are not pretty. While he has the perfect right to state such opinions I too have the right to encourage the group to ignore him.

              He lives to get a rise out of the group and even now he is relishing in that we are wasting band width on his pathetic writings.

              While "Please don't feed the troll" adds little to the level of discussion Dan drags it down to a much lower level.

              Let Dan opine all he wants - we do not have to grace it with a response.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

                Thu, July 23, 2009 - 6:19 PM
                Dan is a troll because he floods politics tribes with posts on the same two or three topics:

                (1) his arguments against athiests

                (2) his arguments that Obama is not a citizen; and

                (3) his hatred of homosexuals.

                Of these topics, only the second one is on topic. But even if something is on topic, if you flood a tribe with posts on the same thing, you are a variety of troll.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

                  Fri, July 24, 2009 - 6:24 AM
                  Leave Dan alone.

                  Dan is a weirdo, and laughing at weirdos is the only reason I log onto tribe anymore.

                  Well, frankly, it's the only reason I've ever logged on.
            • Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

              Mon, July 20, 2009 - 1:21 AM
              Thanks Loki, you're often the voice of reason.

              If you take the time to read the OP, you'll discover that the judge, a magistrate, didn't have a lot to say in the entire article. Essentially he told the defence to hire lawyers.

              The mouthpiece of the article is the lawyer for the complainant. Mario Apuzzo earns his living defending DUIs and other petty crimes. Hmm, so does that mean that the complainant hired the last lawyer he had reason to use or did he hire his neighbourhood lawyer from his service club?

              What is a DUI lawyer doing involved in a case like this? Seems Mario Apuzzo is certainly taking advantage of his new position to gain infamy. He is on every conservative talk radio show and his blog is really, very interesting. I wonder quite seriously how he passed the bar, to be honest. If you thought Johnny Cochrane was a media whore, watch out for this one.

              What concerns me most is that this case poisons the well for the average voter. Voter turnout has already suffered from the people being turned off by the games played in Washington. The Kenneth Starr investigation did more to harm voter turnout, in my opinion, than any other single cause.

              What will this case do for voter turnout? Low voter turnout in 2000 and 2004 gave you a disastrous presidency, in my opinion. Is it the goal of people, like Dan, to drive down voter turnout so that the Republicans stand a chance???
              • Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

                Mon, July 20, 2009 - 1:59 AM
                <Is it the goal of people, like Dan, to drive down voter turnout so that the Republicans stand a chance??? >

                Yes. Based on the last three elections alone, we see that a lower turnout helps the Republicans.

                And sadly, many of the people who turned out in 08 are going to be basically celebrating the alleged death of capitalism and eagerly awaiting the end-times breakdown of societal order. Not much room for 'voting' in nihilistic culthood.

                In short - the GOP candidate will topple Obama next election. Could be Palin! Sure, the debates would clearly show that Obama knows what he's talking about while Palin's a parrot with a bit of training. In much the same way that Kerry fairly solidly blasted Dubya in the debates. The debates don't matter. Nothing matters but the lowest common denominator. We are a nation of Joe the Plumbers.

                We are truly fucked. I give us one, maybe two more generations at best before the USA ceases to exist. Obama wasn't hope and change - that was his campain, and it worked because it worked on something OTHER than the usual manipulations of fear and false patriotism and anger and scapegoating. That part... was magical. But it was an aberration.

                It's quite literally this: his campaign focused on "hope." So, the GOP is focusing on hopelessness. Guess which is more common in an economic meltdown?
                • Re: Lokifreign: uh oh, now it's 'on'

                  Mon, July 20, 2009 - 2:25 AM
                  I predict that if Palin is elected, then there will be only one generation at most before the good ol' USA kicks the bucket. Heck, she would declare war with Russia, just 'cause she can see it from her front porch!

Recent topics in "Political Junkies"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Buddhism in prison - a good idea? Rocky 3 Yesterday, 9:36 PM
Israel is Not A Tolerant Society. . lorenzo 3 Yesterday, 9:01 PM
Ft Hood shooting Stickboy 29 Yesterday, 4:01 PM
Pox News Forrest 1 Yesterday, 3:10 PM