patrick.net

Elliemae, even if HUSSEIN Obama had the birth certificate tattooed on his ass, he would need a raised seal to validate it. Would he need that implanted in his butt cheek? If so, would the implant stay in place? And, if he does have an implant, doesn't that mean he could have been abducted by a UFO?

I think you all have it completely wrong. I think that since he can't produce any honest go goodness and real long form certificate of LIVE birth, that he wasn't even born at all. Different questions come to my mind.

He could have been hatched. Didn't any of you see Mork and Mindy? When Jonathan Winters was born he was hatched from an egg that Robin Williams had to tend. And people of Ork age in reverse. At middle age, we just couldn't tell if he was aging like a true red blooded American human being. I think we should pay attention to see if he's starting to look imperceptively younger. We don't want our country ruled by a small child, now do we?

Now, there is always the possibility that he was born, but it wasn't a live birth. That would confirm an ealier poster's theory that HUSSEIN Obama is undead and possibly a Vampire. However, if he is undead he could be a zombie. Has anyone seen him eat? Does he crave brains? I mean he is part of the smarty pants liberal elite so perhaps he absorbs "intelligence" through eating brains of honest hard working white American humans.

And, since he was raised in a Madras in Indonesia, we all know that his momma skipped the good ol' USA for that commie socialist nazi country, he is actually a Muslim. And we all know that Muslims aren't really human at all. They're Satan worshipers who are spawned from the 9th ring of Hell. He received his programming in that Madras in Indonesia.

Later in his life he went to Kenya where he dressed up as a Kenyan and learned to subvert whitie. If he claims to be an American, he should know that he's only 3/5ths of a person as another poster mentions above (if he is human at all). I think his stint in Kenya was an attempt to make him seem human and possibly African, but definitely a Muslim since all Kenyans are no good Muslims.

And where did he meet his wife, Michelle? Didn't they meet at some commie socialist nazi day camp where they were "educating" white kids on the merits of fascist socialism? Are we sure that Michelle is human? Has she shown her certificate of live birth? I mean if HUSSEIN Obama were to reproduce, he'd have to do it with a being of his own kind. What does that make the kids? And what if this is the start of some alien commie socialist nazi dynasty that will pass to the kids?

We better watch the White House to see if there are any nests or other hatchlings, or if there are any open graves, or if brains are on the menu regularly.

This goes way beyond the short form or the long form. Where is the valid long form of the honest to goodness and real certificate of LIVE birth? That's what I want to know.

Oh he's got a "Long Form" you betcha, I heard all them colored boys have one.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

It’s not on him to produce anything…The man is starting to look like a political genius.

If he wants to run as a candidate for re-election in that state (and others) he sure as hell will have to produce something. Tell us: How is the man going to look like a political genius when he ends up a One Term Wonder?
Or are you saying he’ll produce the long-form after all? You aren’t being clear as to what you quote vs what you concluded with. Please elaborate.

Shrek--what don't you understand? The short form IS a valid birth certificate. Hawaii says so.

Are you saying that another state can tell Hawaii what is and isn't a valid state document?

If so, can Illinois pass a law saying they don't accept any Alaskan birth certificates? So Palin cannot run in IL?

Vicente says

Oh he’s got a “Long Form” you betcha, I heard all them colored boys have one.

Like Madeline Kahn said in Blazing Saddles, "It's twue, It's twue"

simchaland says

Elliemae, even if HUSSEIN Obama had the birth certificate tattooed on his ass, he would need a raised seal to validate it. Would he need that implanted in his butt cheek? If so, would the implant stay in place? And, if he does have an implant, doesn’t that mean he could have been abducted by a UFO?

You raise a valid point for a grizzly fellow - but there's one flaw. The man doesn't appear to have a butt - so if there were a raised seal on his ass, it would surely show through his pants. And I'm sorry for calling you Shirley.

simchaland says

I think you all have it completely wrong. I think that since he can’t produce any honest go goodness and real long form certificate of LIVE birth, that he wasn’t even born at all. Different questions come to my mind.

Now you're catching on! He wasn't born. All along I've said that he wasn't born, that he isn't human and that he's one of the aliens who's come back to rightfully claim our planet. (Don't bother checking my old posts to see if I actually said that - it's there, I promise...). It's the beginning of the end and no one appreciates it except you and me. We're two peas in a pod. Two of a kind. We have so much in common we could be related - I'd call and tell you more but you need to lift that pesky restraining order first. I promise I'll leave my pistol at home this time and not ask you the frequency (Kenneth).

simchaland says

Now, there is always the possibility that he was born, but it wasn’t a live birth. That would confirm an ealier poster’s theory that HUSSEIN Obama is undead and possibly a Vampire. However, if he is undead he could be a zombie. Has anyone seen him eat? Does he crave brains? I mean he is part of the smarty pants liberal elite so perhaps he absorbs “intelligence” through eating brains of honest hard working white American humans.

I've seen the movies & teevee shows. I'm so surprised that no one has raised this possibility before. But then again, maybe the drugs wore off before they got to that point

Vicente says

Oh he’s got a “Long Form” you betcha, I heard all them colored boys have one.

Marry me!

Shrek is not alone:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/perm/0211/birther_poll.html

"51 percent of likely (Republican) primary voters nationwide think President Obama wasn’t born in the United States"

Looks to me like an Obama 2nd term is almost assured.

shrekgrinch says

SoCal Renter says

It’s not on him to produce anything…The man is starting to look like a political genius.

If he wants to run as a candidate for re-election in that state (and others) he sure as hell will have to produce something. Tell us: How is the man going to look like a political genius when he ends up a One Term Wonder?
Or are you saying he’ll produce the long-form after all? You aren’t being clear as to what you quote vs what you concluded with. Please elaborate.

This is a moot point because the Arizona law will be found un-Constitutional and thrown out (by liberal activist judges - I added that last part just for the wing-nuts).

tatupu70 says

Shrek–what don’t you understand? The short form IS a valid birth certificate. Hawaii says so.
Are you saying that another state can tell Hawaii what is and isn’t a valid state document?
If so, can Illinois pass a law saying they don’t accept any Alaskan birth certificates? So Palin cannot run in IL?

It is really that simple. Federal election laws govern how candidates are put on ballots in each state, and there is some discretion with how each state makes those choices for themselves. But USA citizenship is not within one of those purviews. They can require candidates to poll a certain number, gather a certain number of signatures, or jump through some party hurdle.

shrekgrinch says

But they CAN reject birth certificates that don’t name the attending physician or have his/her signature on them or list the hospital or other data (all of which is missing on the short form — scroll up and look at it if you didn’t notice before)…and they can do it ESPECIALLY since that information is required for the original birth certificates issued by the hospital by HAWAIIAN law (in this case).

No they sure as hell cannot. Where is it written that a birth certificate must have the attending physician stated or it is not valid. I can't believe you are arguing this. The short form is an acceptable document to prove natural born citizenship. You can use it to obtain a passport, a drivers license or any other document that requires proof of natural birth. No matter how much you argue, you cannot refute this. No other state can tell Hawaii what must be on their state documents

.shrekgrinch says

Say you move to to California…you go to the DMV and surrender your previous state’s issued driver license. The DMV asks for proof that you live where you say you now live…a cable bill or phone bill or utility bill, for example. A copy of the lease, should you rent…etc. But you insist on showing them documentation from out of state instead. See how far that will go in getting your new, spiffy CA driver’s license. I dare you.

You are proving my point Shrek. When you move to CA. you show them your previous state DL and they accept it. The DL that you obtained in Hawaii with your short form birth certificate. The cable bill is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with the discussion.

World net daily?

Lessee the home page: http://www.wnd.com/

crazy people have to have something to read, so it fulfills a purpose.

elliemae says

Lessee the home page: http://www.wnd.com/

crazy people have to have something to read, so it fulfills a purpose.

It helps them get through this dark time when the evil one is our president. It's kind of like the satire sites that sprang up when Bush was president, such as http://whitehouse.org/ (still exists - check it out).

marcus says

elliemae says

Lessee the home page: http://www.wnd.com/
crazy people have to have something to read, so it fulfills a purpose.

It helps them get through this dark time when the evil one is our president. It’s kind of like the satire sites that sprang up when Bush was president, such as http://whitehouse.org/ (still exists - check it out).

Wasn't this the site that had a whole thing on masturbation? (ellie's back!!!)

tatupu70 says

shrekgrinch says

But they CAN reject birth certificates that don’t name the attending physician or have his/her signature on them or list the hospital or other data (all of which is missing on the short form — scroll up and look at it if you didn’t notice before)…and they can do it ESPECIALLY since that information is required for the original birth certificates issued by the hospital by HAWAIIAN law (in this case).

No they sure as hell cannot. Where is it written that a birth certificate must have the attending physician stated or it is not valid. I can’t believe you are arguing this. The short form is an acceptable document to prove natural born citizenship. You can use it to obtain a passport, a drivers license or any other document that requires proof of natural birth. No matter how much you argue, you cannot refute this. No other state can tell Hawaii what must be on their state documents

Tatus is absolutely correct. Please provide proof that the Federal Government only accepts physician signatures, etc.

Let's play your dumb fantasy game for a moment. What happens to people who lose their original long forms to a fire in the government record's office? Are they no longer citizens?

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Why do you hate America?
elliemae says

APOC

huh?

tatupu70 says

loej–
That’s a very good point. Bill O’Reilly may or may not have raped and murdered that girl–I just don’t understand why he hasn’t presented the proof? It just raises a lot of questions that he hasn’t answered…

Tat, all else about this entertaining thread aside, you're a pretty smart guy and we've discussed "logic" before. I'm sure you realize that there is a significant difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, right?

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

loej–
That’s a very good point. Bill O’Reilly may or may not have raped and murdered that girl–I just don’t understand why he hasn’t presented the proof? It just raises a lot of questions that he hasn’t answered…

Tat, all else about this entertaining thread aside, you’re a pretty smart guy and we’ve discussed “logic” before. I’m sure you realize that there is a significant difference between proving a positive and proving a negative, right?

Para--

it's tongue in cheek. Maybe not as funny as Nomo, but I try occasionally.

shrekgrinch says

You just proved that your point is utter crap and that you don’t even understand what the ‘point’ is. The cable bill is utter nonsense? Try getting a CA ID or DL w/o proof of residing where you claim you now do — regardless of whatever bullshit you brought with you from Hawaii. Again: See how far that gets you. I dare you.

Ooooh. Do you double dog dare me? My point was that the cable bill has no bearing on this discussion. We weren't talking about what I'd need to get a DL. What does establishing residency have to do with Obama being born in Hawaii?

shrekgrinch says

Hell, if some state wants to accept a handwritten note signed by Mickey Mouse on the back of a Denny’s napkin that says, “[So and so] was born at [time] on [date] in Pahrump, Nevada” as valid proof of birth, they can do that too.
No, I am not being sarcastic either. They can damn well do that too. Seriously.

No, they seriously can't. If you read your own citation a little more closely, it says the Supreme Court has held that states can mandate term limits. Nothing else. Not sure how that relates to this discussion....

shrekgrinch says

MarkInSF says

Yeah, like “breaking news” on a “Kenyan” Obama birth certificate that was proven to be a forgery. And even after the admitted it was a forgery

So you just proved that you don’t know the difference between reporting and editorializing? WMD was must ‘reporting’ what others were saying. The NY Times does it all the time (like releasing info that WikiLeaks was going to, saying so and getting a free ride from the government for doing so). That’s what journalists do.

Just reporting what other were saying? Yeah, from somebody that was obivously lying, because of their previous forgery. Or are you claiming that the forgerly is real?

Why in the world would you read or refer to such a website that presents lies as "editorials" or whatever you want to call it?

shrekgrinch says

tatupu70 says

The short form is an acceptable document to prove natural born citizenship. You can use it to obtain a passport, a drivers license or any other document that requires proof of natural birth

A minor nitpick: Since when is ‘natural birth’ a requirement for a driver’s license? Main response: The ’short form’ is only valid if the ACCEPTING agency ACCEPTS it. THAT is WHY THE ISSUE here is the fact that several states are changing that for candidate registration requirements. AND THEY CAN DO JUST THAT.

Again, you make claims that you cannot back up. Where in the Constitution does it say a birth certificate does not provide proof of citizenship?

Again, the Arizona law, if ever actually passed, would be found unconstitutional.

You need to read the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then take a look at the 12th Amendment.

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arizona does not get to decide if Obama is a citizen or not. Hawaii gets that privilege.

A Birther is someone who questions Obama's citizenship. -Shrekgrinch passes the test
A Birther also believes Obama's birth certificate is not adequate proof of citizenship. - Shrekgrinch passes that test too.

Walks like a duck,
Quacks likea duck,
It's a duck, folks.

Found this great chart:

Vicente says

Found this great chart:

Sounds like a rock song, "More Hitler Than Hitler".

Hitler isn't half the Hitler he used to be.

Vicente says

Found this great chart:

I see that you enjoy resurrecting this topic. Hopefully you will find the following article more educational. It was written by Lawrence Solum (a law professor at UIUC in Urbana, Illinois and former Harvard Law Review Editor):
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/fi/107/solum.pdf

Short excerpt:
"What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.”

nos, shorter excerpt:

"Grasping the original meaning of the natural born citizen clause may lead us to the conclusion that the constitutional text does not provide the answer to all of our questions about eligibility for the office of President."

Keep whacking at that piñata.

Anyhoo, there's only two choices here, citizen or not-citizen at birth.

Obama by all indications -- birth notice in the papers, apparently official verification from Hawaii (with filing number right in sequence of 1961 issuances to boot) -- was a US citizen at birth and not a foreigner.

John Jay's letter in 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen

highlighting his concern, which was then incorporated into the Constitution was satisfied by Obama's American citizenship he received at birth.

Trying to parse 18th century legal dictionaries to undo the results of the 2008 election is just nutty, but par for the course for Republicans these days.

Keep it up, I don't think you and your nut brigade is going to find any more electoral victories this decade.

Troy says

Anyhoo, there’s only two choices here, citizen or not-citizen at birth.
Obama by all indications — birth notice in the papers, apparently official verification from Hawaii (with filing number right in sequence of 1961 issuances to boot) — was a US citizen at birth and not a foreigner.
John Jay’s letter in 1787:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen
highlighting his concern, which was then incorporated into the Constitution was satisfied by Obama’s American citizenship he received at birth.
Trying to parse 18th century legal dictionaries to undo the results of the 2008 election is just nutty, but par for the course for Republicans these days.
Keep it up, I don’t think you and your nut brigade is going to find any more electoral victories this decade.

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen".

This is the only definition of a citizen at birth that does not have to be specifically mentioned in the US Naturalization law. A natural born citizen does not have first generation tie to a foreign country - neither by place of birth nor by parents' citizenship.

Any other citizen at birth has a first generation tie to a foreign country.

nosf41 says

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Uttterly wrong by your own cite:

"Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen."

By your own stupid cite Obama was either a natural born citizen or he became a naturalized citizen later.

Given his certificate of live birth was filed in the week after his birth in Hawaii, he was a US citizen at birth and thus not a naturalized citizen.

"it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth" -- Congressional Research Service, 2009

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens." -- United States v. Rhodes, 1866

Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen”.

Great, you've just destroyed your own stupid argument.

Your own cite is just dealing with McCain's own citizenship issues and spends a lot of words but goes nowhere.

James Madison, 1789:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

"Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."

Lynch v. Clarke, 1844

The 14th Amendment trumps all legislation (and prior constitutional jurisprudence for that matter). It states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If Obama was born in the United States, he was a natural born citizen. The judge in the 2009 upheld this.

Birthers have nothing but vague bullshit in response.

Nomograph says

Oh man that wnd.com site. I haven't dipped into Derp! like that in a long time. Although I have to say they may be vague about facts/sources and timelines, they are never vague about consequences. The consequence is always quite vivid like:

"As We Move Closer And Closer To Orwell's 1984..."

or perhaps

"We’re Literally Standing on the Brink of Tyranny!"

I'm reminded sharply of numerous apocalypse cults.

This thread is still going?

My question still stands, shrekgrinch.

MarkInSF says

shrekgrinch says

MarkInSF says
Yeah, like “breaking news” on a “Kenyan” Obama birth certificate that was proven to be a forgery. And even after the admitted it was a forgery
So you just proved that you don’t know the difference between reporting and editorializing? WMD was must ‘reporting’ what others were saying. The NY Times does it all the time (like releasing info that WikiLeaks was going to, saying so and getting a free ride from the government for doing so). That’s what journalists do.

Just reporting what other were saying? Yeah, from somebody that was obivously lying, because of their previous forgery. Or are you claiming that the forgerly is real?
Why in the world would you read or refer to such a website that presents lies as “editorials” or whatever you want to call it?

Troy says

nosf41 says

Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth.

Uttterly wrong by your own cite:
“Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen.” Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of naturalization is not a natural born citizen.”
By your own stupid cite Obama was either a natural born citizen or he became a naturalized citizen later.
Given his certificate of live birth was filed in the week after his birth in Hawaii, he was a US citizen at birth and thus not a naturalized citizen.
“it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth” — Congressional Research Service, 2009
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” — United States v. Rhodes, 1866
Professor told you that there is a general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a “natural born citizen”.
Great, you’ve just destroyed your own stupid argument.
Your own cite is just dealing with McCain’s own citizenship issues and spends a lot of words but goes nowhere.
James Madison, 1789:
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
Lynch v. Clarke, 1844
The 14th Amendment trumps all legislation (and prior constitutional jurisprudence for that matter). It states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If Obama was born in the United States, he was a natural born citizen. The judge in the 2009 upheld this.
Birthers have nothing but vague bullshit in response.

The US Naturalization Act from 1790 says the following:
"...And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens..."

The law was changed 5 years later in 1795:
"...and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

This example tells us that early Congress made a distinction between phrases "natural born Citizen" and citizen (at birth).

In addition, both laws say the following: "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States"

The last sentence illustrates thinking of those early legislators: they would not consider a child born to an alien, non-resident, father either as a citizen or a natural born Citizen.

Obama's father was a foreign student who never intended to establish a residence in the US. He returned to Kenya as soon as he finished studies here.

MarkInSF says

This thread is still going?

It won't die. If you can't prove your point logically, with facts and stuff, it's always best to beat everyone into submission by repeating yourself ad nauseum. If they were in the room with us at a party, they'd be saying it loudly while standing over us (pounding the table like the mentally ill homless guy who talks to himself) until we work our way to the door and sneak out to Denny's.

I love chocolate.

nosf41 says

This example tells us that early Congress made a distinction between phrases “natural born Citizen” and citizen (at birth).

It may tell you and other wishful-thinkers that but there's no other jurisprudence that supports this. The alternative explanation is simply that they realized "natural born citizen" is a constitutional term of art (meant to exclude naturalized citizens from the Presidency) and Congress' job was limited to defining only citizenship -- who is and isn't a "natural born citizen" would, uh, naturally fall out from that.

The last sentence illustrates thinking of those early legislators: they would not consider a child born to an alien, non-resident, father either as a citizen or a natural born Citizen.

For people not born in the US, yes. Obama doesn't have this problem.

Nomograph says

It doesn’t matter if various arguments completely contradict each other, as long as they lead to the desired conclusion they will believe it.

You've forgotten the obvious: that Simcha claims to like chocolate. However, there's no quantifiable evidence to support his position. He purposefully didn't offer any additional information and I demand to know more about his position on this ever important issue. Does he purport to like dark chocolate, milk chocolate, white chocolate (which, according to Wikipedia, is "a confection of sugar, cocoa butter and milk solids with a pale yellow or ivory appearance..." - in other words, not really chocolate at all!). Does he claim to like have a propensity for chocolates - like See's or the super-expensive kinds like Godiva, or is he a store-bought candy bar kind of dude?

Simcha has mentioned his fondness of chocolate on at least two different threads, which leads me to wonder what he's hiding... Does he have a chocolate fetish and this is his way of telling the world about it? This man (or freak, depending upon what he does with the chocolate...) must come clean and provide us with more information.

Does he mean to tell us that Obama likes chocolate too? Is he in the know? Did Obama's parents like chocolate, and therefore any person who likes chocolate must prove his citizenship?

Too many questions and not enough answers. Simchaland, I demand that you defend yourself against the following with a yes or no answer:
Do you like chocolate more than you like your country and, if so, are you prepared to take a test (the long form) to prove your loyalty to the US of A?

Nomograph says

Birthers have a preconceived conclusion (e.g. that Obama is not eligible to be President) and will fall hook and line for ANY argument that leads to this conclusion.

Nomo, you are not giving Birthers enough credit.

The will fall hook line and SINKER, let's not be niggardly eh?

Can we get a mod to lock this thread?

It's clear that all the arguments have been presented.

It's continuing life serves no purpose.

frodo says

Can we get a mod to lock this thread?
It’s clear that all the arguments have been presented.
It’s continuing life serves no purpose.

So you don't care what kind of chocolate Simchaland, and by extension, Obama, might like? That's downright unAmerican.

This thread died long ago. Now we're just screwing around.

simchaland says

I love chocolate.

Good point.

Nomograph says

frodo says

It’s continuing life serves no purpose.

It serves to continually mock the Tea Party Birthers nutjobs like shreckgrinch, nosf41, and RayAMerica.
That alone is enough reason to keep it immortalized.

Ahh yes leave to Nomo to point out something I had not thought of.

You are indeed correct sir.

I rescind my request in light of this convincing perspective.

OK, yeah, Ill screw with them a little more.

Here is a line of discussion I have not seen pursued.

Suppose he wasn't born in America. Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.) So anyway, I was saying that the entire population of the world, including Obama, agrees that he was not born on US soil.

Waddayougonnadoaboutit?

Impeach him? The way they impeached Clinton? ;) Imagine you do impeach him, and manage to get him to leave office; you get Biden for your troubles.

Stop being so short sighted. All of your wordplay cannot give credence to this absurd topic. Bow you friggen head and move on. There are other battles to be fought, birthers lost this one. Of course we all know that none of them have any intent beyond misdirection and provocation.

The foot soldiers who fight for this cause are tools. Tools and slaves.

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth, that is a prima-facie slam-dunk instant impeachment, and I would fully support it.

That's why I don't dismiss all this crap 100%. The birthers have every right to verify the Certification of Live Birth is not fraudulent.

Troy says

Actually if it came out that President Obama lied about being a US citizen at birth...

...he'd be a fucking child prodigy well beyond any other child, ever. Even my kids (who were the smartest and cutest kids in the entire world, with the possible exception of my future grandchildren) couldn't speak at birth.

frodo says

Someone comes up with incontrovertible proof of this (Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort.)

Stop right there, young man! Just by saying "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" you've provided incontrovertible proof that "Ahahahahahahaaaaaa Oh Ho ho hahahahahahah . . . harrumph. . . . . Snooort" exists, thereby completely nullifying your argument about the doubtfulness of the concept.

Meanwhile, Simchaland skirts the issue (sorry, didn't mean to call your manhood into question but "pants" the issue simply doesn't make sense, nor does "tighty-whities...") that I raised: What kind of chocolate?

bob2356 says

simchaland says

I love chocolate.

Good point.

Bob weighs in now - it's a conspiracy!