On May 1, 6:54*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message

...





On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:01:16 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U..S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.

To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

Prove it Iggy. Dave.

If you are claiming that he is a citizen, natural born, and bogus birth
certs dont count...and we do indeed need proof..its up to you to PROVE
IT that he is allowed to be President of the USA.

Afterall..the contention of both of you smart guys is that there is no
requirement for a birth cert to be involved..so ****ing PROVE IT that he
is legally our president.

Failure to do so will simply make both of you look like buffoons.

Gunner

The state of Hawaii certified his birth, a joint session of Congress
confirmed his election, and the courts have found against the challenges.
The Supreme Court has refused cert.

That's the end of the legal line. He's legally our president. Your
skepticism has nothing to do with it, any more than your opinion about the
findings of a jury means anything.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gummer is demonstrating why he serves Taft, CA in the role as their
Resident Idiot.

TMT

Yes..it requires some form of proof.

Where? Show me.

Show me where it doesnt..how it couldnt?

Right he
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html

You are aware..that even the Democratic Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused
to certify him for running for president, right?

Quit changing the subject. You claimed that the birth certificate is required.
OK, prove it. Or admit that you were lying, or had no idea what you were
talking about. Or STFU.

So which part are you referring to?

Im still waiting

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)

On Sun, 01 May 2011 20:34:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:


Please..if you would be so kind..prove that the Obamassiah is a natural
born citizen.

Since you dont want to use the birth cert..lets see how you are going to
do it.


You could ask him where he was born

That seemed to work OK
for the other 43 presidents

Actually..no it didnt. The political parties investigated and then
submitted a document verifying that they were legal. At least..for the
past 90 yrs

Try again.

And ask him where he was born? He has lied 2063 times so far since
taking office..and we should trust his word????

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)

On May 1, 7:54*pm, Ignoramus15384 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15384.invalid wrote:
On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:







"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
m...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U..S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.

To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.

I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree Ig.

TMT

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a
U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to
make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.


I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i

Eh, I wouldn't attribute that to Republicans. You're really describing two
different things. The Swiftboaters are just garden-variety extreme
partisans, who tend to have a feeble grip on truth and an underlying belief
that the ends justify the means. Gunner is a much more common organism these
days -- the type whose personality traits (commonly, neuroses) are amplified
by the Internet. It's become a topic for advanced-degree theses and white
papers, so I won't try to get into it here. You know what I'm talking about,
I'm sure.

Having been a Republican from the time that it meant something a lot
different, I'm appalled at what the identity has morphed into, so I'm not
arguing that there isn't something there. But, given that you lived in the
Soviet Union when some big social changes took place here, it may not be
clear what's happened and where we are now, in terms of the swings and
trends.

The US periodically has a large contingent of True Believers (after the book
by that title, written a half-century ago by longshoreman/philosopher Eric
Hoffer). In the '60s and '70s, they were mostly leftist. In terms of
behavior toward other people, ones who didn't see things as they did, they
were the flip side of today's right wing. They were pretty obnoxious.

As Hoffer predicted, when the tide changed, the True Believers flipped to
the other extreme. Now most of these characters are extreme rightists. It's
even some of the same people -- I know a few, personally, who flipped 180
degrees. Gunner has said that he was a hippie type back in the late '60s,
himself. This is no surprise. (We won't address what a hippie was; the term
of mutual identity, after 1968 or so and through the '70s, was "freaks."
Real hippies were gone by 1968.)

They currently have the Republican Party by the balls and they're wreaking
havoc on its character. A lot of right-leaning Internet denizens, while not
necessarily of the True Believer obnoxious type in real life, have adopted
their language and their postures online.

The key characteristics of this bunch are extreme arrogance and trashy
put-downs; as you've noted, a complete disregard for any "truth" that
doesn't support their posture; and a pugnacious approach to discussions.

They're Republicans because they have no other place to call home. The
wingers are tolerated but not embraced by mainstream Republicans, but,
again, they've become the mouthpieces who get the most attention. Just
remember that True Believers can be of any extreme.

You're right to mistrust them, but it's worth being careful and
discriminating. Some very fine people are Republicans. My in-laws, for
example. d8-) Hating for Jesus, or bull****ting about the Constitution and
the Founding Fathers, is not part of their character.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 May 2011 19:54:37 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a
U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to
one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back
off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to
make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.


I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i

Still waiting for Proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii Iggy.

Perhaps Eddy can get it for you?

You've already seen it, Gunner. But no one would expect you to recognize it
if it bit you on the butt.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 1, 8:07*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message

...





On 2011-05-02, Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:09:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving *the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Which doesn't say *anything* about needing to produce a birth
certificate.

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Apparently, that person was you, because I'm clearly better informed on
the
subject than you are. Now produce a cite for your claim that a candidate
needs

to produce his birth certificate, or STFU.

Doug..how do you PROVE you meet the criteria? *Simply saying you do?

Thats hardly valid. Far too many crooks and unscrupulous individuals who
want a piece of power..or their nose in the public cookie jar would lie
their asses off to get in to power.

Quit changing the subject. You said that a birth certificate is required
for
candidates for president. I challenged you to provide proof. Of course
you
can't, because that isn't true. So you're trying to change the subject..

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?

It wouldn't help, Iggy. Remember that Gunner enlisted with a stolen
identity, for example.

--
Ed Huntress





So why are you so upset that one has to prove one is a natural born
citizen to be president..in one valid form or another? * The birth cert
being the easiest and fastest method out there?

I'm not upset about anything. I'm just calling you out for making a false
statement.

If I was going to be upset about anything, I'd be upset that you *don't*
have
to prove you're a natural-born citizen. I think candidates *should* have
to
prove that -- but they don't. And you claimed that they do.

Or do you think that having people swear you were natural born is good
enough? *If Obama got say...Saul Alinksky *and maybe Fidel Castro to
swear he was born inside the USA....

And why are you so testy? *The question is very much out there..hell....a
lot of questions are very much out there..and given the track record of
te Obamassiah on this matter...they had best be answered to everyones
satisfaction..or they will indeed remain out there.

Say...you didnt...didnt vote for the Obamassiah...did you ?

I voted for McCain.

Say it aint so.....

Gunner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is if Gummer enlisted at all.

A chronic liar like Gummer tells lies about everything including his
so called military service.

TMT

On May 1, 8:26*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:33:08 GMT, (Doug





Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:19:53 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
wrote:
[attribution dropped]
What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving *the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

"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; neither shall any Person be eligible
to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five
Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

-- *Constitution of the United States, Article II, section I, paragraph
* * 5.

No, that doesn't help at all, because it doesn't say anything about birth
certificates.

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any of
his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1931.
Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890. Are/were
they not natural born citizens?

Any of them try to become President? If not..the matter remains moot.

It doesn't matter whether they did or not: your insane fantasies
notwithstanding, the Constitution does not require a birth certificate or any
other form of proof.

Yes..it requires some form of proof.

Show me where it doesnt..how it couldnt? *

You are aware..that even the Democratic Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused
to certify him for running for president, right?

http://www.evilconservativeonline.co...-2008-hawaii-d...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0

2008: Hawaii Dems refused to certify Obama eligibility for the Pr...
The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that
Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of
President that he was running for which was the normal procedure by the
State Democratic Party of Hawaii in all the prior election cycles. See
the State Democratic Party of Hawaii certification of nomination
forms[embedded below] for the Presidential election years of 2008 for
Obama, 2004 for Kerry, and 2000 for Gore.

See this summarizing quote from the Butterdezillion blog post of 10 Sep
2010:

"It's been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their
original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming
to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on
the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates,
so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state
democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the
candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii
Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to
specifically NOT certify Obama's eligibility as they had done for
candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on
whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty
to NOT certify Obama's eligibility, because the democratic party of the
state supposedly holding Obama's birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY
Obama's eligibility."
Source:http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09

What did the State Democratic Party officials in Hawaii know about Obama
and his now hidden and sealed 1961 original typed long form birth
registration documents in Hawaii, and subsequent amendments to same,
which would cause them to change their normal certification of
nomination procedures for presidential candidates?

Is this possibly more evidence in Hawaii and elsewhere of possible
misprision of a felony?

So Doug...someone is going to give *you $1 million dollars but only with
proof its actually you.

How are you going to do that? *Or are you going to give up the $1
million dollars?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

Im also curious Doug..what leads you to state such a ridiculous a
statement?

Voted for him...didnt you...?

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)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove to us that you served in the military....I do not believe you
did.

TMT

On May 1, 8:59*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:36:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any
of his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and
1931. Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890.
Are/were they not natural born citizens?

Sure they are, but are they running for the office of the most powerful man
in the world?

Doesn't matter. You tried to make an equivalence between being a natural born
citizen, and having a birth certificate that proves it -- which Obama does.

Actually..no..he doesnt. So far..it..both of them..appear to be
fraudulant.

Are you blind, or insane, or just stupid?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gummer is a Republican....so he is all of them.

TMT

On May 1, 9:18*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message

...





On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
om...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a
U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.

To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to
make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.

I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i

Eh, I wouldn't attribute that to Republicans. You're really describing two
different things. The Swiftboaters are just garden-variety extreme
partisans, who tend to have a feeble grip on truth and an underlying belief
that the ends justify the means. Gunner is a much more common organism these
days -- the type whose personality traits (commonly, neuroses) are amplified
by the Internet. It's become a topic for advanced-degree theses and white
papers, so I won't try to get into it here. You know what I'm talking about,
I'm sure.

Having been a Republican from the time that it meant something a lot
different, I'm appalled at what the identity has morphed into, so I'm not
arguing that there isn't something there. But, given that you lived in the
Soviet Union when some big social changes took place here, it may not be
clear what's happened and where we are now, in terms of the swings and
trends.

The US periodically has a large contingent of True Believers (after the book
by that title, written a half-century ago by longshoreman/philosopher Eric
Hoffer). In the '60s and '70s, they were mostly leftist. In terms of
behavior toward other people, ones who didn't see things as they did, they
were the flip side of today's right wing. They were pretty obnoxious.

As Hoffer predicted, when the tide changed, the True Believers flipped to
the other extreme. Now most of these characters are extreme rightists. It's
even some of the same people -- I know a few, personally, who flipped 180
degrees. Gunner has said that he was a hippie type back in the late '60s,
himself. This is no surprise. (We won't address what a hippie was; the term
of mutual identity, after 1968 or so and through the '70s, was "freaks."
Real hippies were gone by 1968.)

They currently have the Republican Party by the balls and they're wreaking
havoc on its character. A lot of right-leaning Internet denizens, while not
necessarily of the True Believer obnoxious type in real life, have adopted
their language and their postures online.

The key characteristics of this bunch are extreme arrogance and trashy
put-downs; as you've noted, a complete disregard for any "truth" that
doesn't support their posture; and a pugnacious approach to discussions.

They're Republicans because they have no other place to call home. The
wingers are tolerated but not embraced by mainstream Republicans, but,
again, they've become the mouthpieces who get the most attention. Just
remember that True Believers can be of any extreme.

You're right to mistrust them, but it's worth being careful and
discriminating. Some very fine people are Republicans. My in-laws, for
example. d8-) Hating for Jesus, or bull****ting about the Constitution and
the Founding Fathers, is not part of their character.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good disscussion Ed.

The nuts are destroying the Republican Party.

And we do NEED viable differing parties for this Country to work.

TMT

On 2011-05-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 19:54:37 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.


I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i

Still waiting for Proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii Iggy.

Perhaps Eddy can get it for you?

Laugh laugh laugh...snicker..chortle...laugh laugh laugh!!

Well, if the State of Hawaii says so, and the newspaper has an ad, and
there is a copy of the birth certificate, that's great proof.

i

On 2011-05-02, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Ignoramus15384 wrote:
On 2011-05-02, Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:09:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Which doesn't say *anything* about needing to produce a birth certificate.

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Apparently, that person was you, because I'm clearly better informed on the
subject than you are. Now produce a cite for your claim that a candidate
needs

to produce his birth certificate, or STFU.

Doug..how do you PROVE you meet the criteria? Simply saying you do?

Thats hardly valid. Far too many crooks and unscrupulous individuals who
want a piece of power..or their nose in the public cookie jar would lie
their asses off to get in to power.

Quit changing the subject. You said that a birth certificate is required for
candidates for president. I challenged you to provide proof. Of course you
can't, because that isn't true. So you're trying to change the subject.

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?

Changing the subject AGAIN.

You claimed that producing a birth certificate was required. I asked you for
proof.

You can't provide it, and you know it. So you keep changing the subject.

Were you responding to me???

i

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's
a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2708005/posts

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)

On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:59:06 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:36:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise

I think "Natural born Citizen" pretty much covers that.

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any
of his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and
1931. Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890.
Are/were they not natural born citizens?

Sure they are, but are they running for the office of the most powerful man
in the world?

Doesn't matter. You tried to make an equivalence between being a natural born
citizen, and having a birth certificate that proves it -- which Obama does.

Actually..no..he doesnt. So far..it..both of them..appear to be
fraudulant.

Are you blind, or insane, or just stupid?

Oddly enough..I was thinking about asking you the very same question.

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)

On Mon, 02 May 2011 02:00:08 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:31:46 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

I don't have to prove it, you idiot. He already did.

With an apparently fraudulant document?

No, with an apparently authentic document.

So you have counter evidence that the Cert of Life Birth and the Birth
Cert are legitimate?

Please, present it here and now.


Do try harder Doug.

Do try to keep up, Gummer.

Oh..Ive ruffled your feathers and you now must resort to personal
insults.


Sure you want to play the game that way? Hummm Dough?

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)

In article , wrote:


Yes..it requires some form of proof.

Where? Show me.

Show me where it doesnt..how it couldnt?

Right he
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...stitution.html

You are aware..that even the Democratic Party of Hawaii in 2008, refused
to certify him for running for president, right?

Quit changing the subject. You claimed that the birth certificate is required.

OK, prove it. Or admit that you were lying, or had no idea what you were
talking about. Or STFU.

So which part are you referring to?

I'm referring to your claim that candidates are required to produce their
birth certificates.

Im still waiting

That's really pretty funny. *You* are still waiting?? For WHAT? *I* am still
waiting for you to produce a cite that backs up your claim.

Of course you can't. If you could, you would have already. But you can't, and
you know it, which is why you keep changing the subject.

In article , Ignoramus15384 wrote:
On 2011-05-02, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Ignoramus15384
wrote:
On 2011-05-02, Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:09:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:24:09 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.

Requirement of what? Got a cite for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...Citizen_Clause

Which doesn't say *anything* about needing to produce a birth certificate.

Now I know someone didnt stay awake through Gov 101....

Apparently, that person was you, because I'm clearly better informed on
the
subject than you are. Now produce a cite for your claim that a candidate
needs

to produce his birth certificate, or STFU.

Doug..how do you PROVE you meet the criteria? Simply saying you do?

Thats hardly valid. Far too many crooks and unscrupulous individuals who
want a piece of power..or their nose in the public cookie jar would lie
their asses off to get in to power.

Quit changing the subject. You said that a birth certificate is required
for
candidates for president. I challenged you to provide proof. Of course you
can't, because that isn't true. So you're trying to change the subject.

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?

Changing the subject AGAIN.

You claimed that producing a birth certificate was required. I asked you for
proof.

You can't provide it, and you know it. So you keep changing the subject.

Were you responding to me???


No, sorry, Iggy, I was responding to Goober.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's
a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 02:00:08 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:31:46 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

I don't have to prove it, you idiot. He already did.

With an apparently fraudulant document?

No, with an apparently authentic document.

So you have counter evidence that the Cert of Life Birth and the Birth
Cert are legitimate?

Please, present it here and now.

Stop changing the subject.

You posted the false claim that candidates are somehow required to produce
their birth certificates to prove their citizenship.

That isn't true.

Now either (a) post proof, (b) admit that you were deliberately lying, (c)
admit that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, or (d)
STFU.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 21:46:32 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

On 2011-05-02, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 19:54:37 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

On 2011-05-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus15384" wrote in message
...
On 2011-05-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 18:16:32 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:


Can you possibly be that stupid? He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is a U.S.
state, and was at the time of his birth. That makes him a natural-born
citizen.


To cut to the chase..prove it.

And there is no need to post (2) evidently fraudulant documents in
support of your case. Thats already been tried.

Prove it.

What are you asking him to do, get originals?

The documents are not fraudulent. The fraud here is you.

i

You know, the addled welfare queen would be a lot more tolerable if it
wasn't for those lines, like the one above, "Can you possibly be that
stupid?"

But bluster is a compensation for failure, or fear of failure, and is an
element of the psychology of lying. Repeated failure and threats to one's
self-image can produce a large spectrum of behaviors; a full-throttle,
full-time bluster suggests a deep-seated, long-running problem. Every so
often I think that the guy actually is close to the edge, and I back off.
It's not easy dealing with such obnoxious behavior but I don't want to make
him worse. So I'm going to back off again. Maybe he ought to just be
plonked. I'm sure we can learn all we need about clapped-out machines
without him.


I do not have your psychoanalitic abilities, but I would say, that it
is the Gunner style behavior that made me mistrust the Republican
party. Swiftboating, the fake "In invented the Internet" quote etc. He
is a fun guy to talk about metal related things, but his escapades
make me think less of Republicans, not more.

i

Still waiting for Proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii Iggy.

Perhaps Eddy can get it for you?

Laugh laugh laugh...snicker..chortle...laugh laugh laugh!!

Well, if the State of Hawaii says so, and the newspaper has an ad, and
there is a copy of the birth certificate, that's great proof.

i

The State of Hawaii claimed they couldnt find it. In fact..the Governor
of Hawaii claimed they couldnt find it 2 months ago.

The newspaper ad..very common thing and of no value whatsoever.

The copy of the birth cert appears to be fraudulant.

Hardly great proof..and there is great questions hanging out there.

Now..Ive got 3 IDs, all in different names, all with current drivers
licenses, all from different states. 2 of them have expired..Ive not
been to Aridzona and Nevada recently to renew them.

So each and every one of those are valid proof that Im "Bob Somebody" or
Jose Somebody" or Randolph Somebody.

I also have a Mexican Consular Matricula card, proving that Im a Mexican
national from Coahuila and was born in a village just outside of El
Santuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe

So they are all good IDs and prove Im 4 different people. Right?

Actually...3 of them are actually state issued and legitimate..the
Metricula card cost me $35 some dollars in McArthur Park in Los Angeles.
Its a pretty damned good forgery. Better than the Obama Birth Cert.

But..non of them is legitimate ID., nor do any of them allow me..LEGALLY
to hold office in any state, city or village.

So lets see your hard proof guys. We are ALL waiting for the witnesses,
the doctors, etc etc. Please.

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)

On Sun, 01 May 2011 21:47:01 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

You claimed that producing a birth certificate was required. I asked you for
proof.

You can't provide it, and you know it. So you keep changing the subject.

Were you responding to me???

i

Nah..Doughy was getting all flustered and agrivated and posting
buffoonery in his angst. It was directed at me.

He wont answer the hard questions so had to try to flank attack ..AKA..a
diversion.

But..shrug..he apparently is a big Obama fan..so its expected.

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)

Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?

Not everybody in the military is a "natural-born citizen." there were
several Mexicans in my Basic Training "Flight". (in the USAF, a "flight" is
equivalent to an army "platoon.") I once even had a Canadian supervisor.

The military will accept any warm body who can pass the test. I don't even
know if they check for a green card.

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's
a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Dont like people questioning why he spent $2 million dollars of tax
payer money since 2008 keeping from having to prove his birth...

Tough

Dont like the fact that evidence appears to point out that the Birth
Certs appear to be fraudulant?

Tough.

Its going to be people a lot higher in the food chain then you and me,
that will take this to the Supreme Court. And if they find a deliberate
fraud..the Republican Congress is going to gut the Democrats like trout
and throw the players in prison, remove Obama from the Office of the
President, create a Constitutional Crisis with all the laws he signed
into being, all the war powers he has used and generally turn the nation
upside down.

Shrug..it will most likely trigger off the Great Cull, which will be a
very very nasty thing, and change the face of American politics for
decades. However..it will..as a side note..create thousands of small
community parks over the pits where Leftwingers, Klanners and other scum
were bulldozed after their murders by the thousands.

Dont like it?

Tough.

But heads up Dough...its not going away anytime soon. Deal with it.
Struggle with it..suck it up.

It aint going away anytime soon.

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)

Doug Miller wrote:

That's not the point. You claimed that candidates are required to provide
their birth certificates.

Who made this claim, in which post?

They're only required to be a natural-born citizen, as several people have
quoted. The simplest way to show that you are a natural-born citizen is to
show your birth certificate.

You're right, the Constitution doesn't require a birth certificate, but you
keep claiming that someone here said it does.

Who? When? In what post?

Thanks,
Rich

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's
a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

In which post? Can you produce a link to it?

Thanks,
Rich

Gunner Asch wrote:

Since you dont want to use the birth cert..lets see how you are going to
do it.

But, Gunner, is it really true that you claimed that the Constitution
requires a birth certificate? In the copy I read, it only says, "natural-
born citizen."

Thanks,
Rich

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2011 20:34:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:


Please..if you would be so kind..prove that the Obamassiah is a natural
born citizen.

Since you dont want to use the birth cert..lets see how you are going to
do it.


You could ask him where he was born

That seemed to work OK
for the other 43 presidents

Actually..no it didnt. The political parties investigated and then
submitted a document verifying that they were legal. At least..for the
past 90 yrs

Try again.

And ask him where he was born? He has lied 2063 times so far since
taking office..and we should trust his word????


Does that include the one where he claims to remember being born in
Hawaii?
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

No, it doesn't. My father doesn't have one, AFAIK, and neither do/did any of
his brothers -- all born at home in rural Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1931.
Neither did his father, born at home in rural Pennsylvania in 1890. Are/were
they not natural born citizens?


Are you claiming that their birth wasn't recorded by the county they
were born in?

That's quite possible, maybe even likely: my grandparents belonged to a
religious sect that kept pretty much to themselves, avoiding contact with
secular authority as much as possible.


Sigh.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

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.

And anyway, the Communist Mother****er has been the Commander-in-Chief for
two and a half years already - let's focus on his violations of the
Constitution while he's been in power.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Doug Miller wrote:

No, sorry, Iggy, I was responding to Goober.


You shouldn't be talking to yourself online, Goober.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On Sun, 01 May 2011 21:33:53 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Since you dont want to use the birth cert..lets see how you are going to
do it.

But, Gunner, is it really true that you claimed that the Constitution
requires a birth certificate? In the copy I read, it only says, "natural-
born citizen."

Thanks,
Rich

Nope, not intentionally at least..and I dont think I did in the first
place. But it IS the most common and convienent way to prove birth info.

What I find fascinating..Doughy keeps claiming that there is NO reason
to prove birth data to be president.

I keep blinking every time I read that...really.

And Iggy..poor Iggy..keeps traisping along like a sheep in Doughys herd,
blindly blithering on and on. Ignoring the facts of the matter at
present...like a blimp in a breeze....its actually sad to watch two
grown men take that stance. Hence my question about who Doughy voted
for..(he claims McCain)..and Iggy..well..Im sure he voted for
Obamassiah. He hasnt been out of Russia all that long and Im sure the
Democrats give him a warm feeling.

Anyways....its going to be interesting..because this is NOT going to go
away..even with the Obamassiah claiming credit for Osamas death.

Shrug

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)

On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:43:03 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ignoramus15384 wrote:

Maybe not everyone has a birth certificate, but surely anyone who was
discharged from the military, should have a set of discharge papers?


Are you now claiming Obama served in the US military? Or is this
simply more ignorant trash talk on your part?

I believe he is referring to me. That subject has been beat to death
over the years. But..shrug..Iggy had to inject Something to take the
heat off Doughy and Iggy himself.

Shrug


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)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 May 2011 21:33:53 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

Since you dont want to use the birth cert..lets see how you are going to
do it.

But, Gunner, is it really true that you claimed that the Constitution
requires a birth certificate? In the copy I read, it only says, "natural-
born citizen."

Thanks,
Rich

Nope, not intentionally at least..and I dont think I did in the first
place. But it IS the most common and convienent way to prove birth info.

Yeah, you did:

[J.D. Slocomb]

What other President has published his birth certificate? If the
answer is "none" then why should the present incumbent?

[Gunner]

Every one of them has. Along with their school records (all of which
seem to be missing from the Obamassiah)

Proving the birth certificate to meet the qualifications is a
Requirement.


What I find fascinating..Doughy keeps claiming that there is NO reason
to prove birth data to be president.

He's right. You haven't looked.


I keep blinking every time I read that...really.

That's because you're a lazy ignoramus who flaps his gums without looking
first.


And Iggy..poor Iggy..keeps traisping along like a sheep in Doughys herd,
blindly blithering on and on. Ignoring the facts of the matter at
present...like a blimp in a breeze....its actually sad to watch two
grown men take that stance. Hence my question about who Doughy voted
for..(he claims McCain)..and Iggy..well..Im sure he voted for
Obamassiah. He hasnt been out of Russia all that long and Im sure the
Democrats give him a warm feeling.

Iggy is right; Doug is right. You're full of ****.

'Want to challenge me on it?


Anyways....its going to be interesting..because this is NOT going to go
away..even with the Obamassiah claiming credit for Osamas death.

The stroke appears to have taken a greater toll than we realized.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 21:47:01 -0500, Ignoramus15384
wrote:

You claimed that producing a birth certificate was required. I asked you for

proof.

You can't provide it, and you know it. So you keep changing the subject.

Were you responding to me???

i

Nah..Doughy was getting all flustered and agrivated and posting
buffoonery in his angst. It was directed at me.

He wont answer the hard questions so had to try to flank attack ..AKA..a
diversion.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

That's not the point. You claimed that candidates are required to provide
their birth certificates.

Who made this claim, in which post?

Gummer did. I quoted it in my reply to him. Not *my* fault you snipped it.

They're only required to be a natural-born citizen, as several people have
quoted. The simplest way to show that you are a natural-born citizen is to
show your birth certificate.

You're right, the Constitution doesn't require a birth certificate, but you
keep claiming that someone here said it does.

Who? When? In what post?

Gummer. Go back and read the thread. Not my job to do your reading for you. If
you had read the posts you were replying to, and hadn't snipped the relevant
parts, you wouldn't need to ask the question.

In article , Rich Grise wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Rich Grise
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all. Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's
a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

In which post? Can you produce a link to it?

Message-ID:

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.

On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:10:25 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 03:26:29 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 01:58:26 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article ,

wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2011 00:34:07 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Rich Grise
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Show me where the Constitution says a candidate for President needs to
produce his birth certificate. That's what you claimed, after all.
Let's
see the proof.

Well, a real birth certificate is pretty much good enough proof that he's

a natural born citizen, no?

You're missing the point rather badly, I'm afraid. Gummer claimed that
candidates are required to provide their birth certificates.

That simply isn't true.

Doug..they are required to prove where they were born.

That's not true. If you claim it is, prove it, or STFU.

Prove that they are not.

1. I don't have to. *You* made the claim, *you* prove it's true.

2. Even though I don't have to, I already did. I posted a link to the full
text of the U.S. Constitution, which contains no such requirement.

Ive posted the links to the Citation process from each party..and the
refusal of Hawaii to certify the Obamassiah, contrary to every year on
record prior to 2008

Dont like the implications?

Tough.

Keep dancing, Gummer, keep changing the subject, anything to avoid admitting
that you were wrong.

Seems Doughy is in denial that there is any change at all that the
Obamassiahs birth cert is another fake.

Must be nice to live in such a strange and deranged world. Do the
butterflys talk to you when you go out for a walk in it?

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)