On Mon, 02 May 2011 19:22:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

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?

So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is
needed?

Is that like no one actually needs a drivers license or ID of any kind
too?

Please advise

Gunner

--
"If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight,
it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is
six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified)