In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:43 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:17:22 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born. So far..all we
have from the Obamassiah..is apparently bogus documentation.

In what version of the Constitution? The one I read,
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ,
only requires that they be a "natural-born citizen."

The need for a birth certificate should only arise when your status as a
natural-born citizen is called into question, and even then, only because
it would be the most convenient way to show that fact. I'd imagine that the
testimony of a couple of live witnesses would be sufficient, if you're not
an idiot birther.

Doug, I guess I'm sorry for bitching you out about not quoting Gunner's
specific previous post, but I guess here it is.

Noted; thank you. That's actually the second post in which he made that
claim.

Yet Doughy is claiming that no proof of being natural born is needed.

You claim it is -- show me.

Or STFU.

So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed?

What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that?

*You* are the one that made that false claim, not me.