Another "Birther" lawsuit gets slapped down - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Jefe · #31 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

Obama's birthplace must have been confirmed and established for him to run for president. There is nothing strange about that. It is a requirement.

That's what I keep thinking... his birthplace was confirmed, period, end of story. If his birthplace hadn't been positively confirmed, he wouldn't have been allowed to run for president in the first place, let alone win the election and be sworn in.

Unfortunately, some people can't let go of this conspiracy.

jet57 · #32 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsquare

Oh... you mean like all the nut jobs that dogged Bush for his full 8 years... including Dan Rather?

Yeah... that must have been what you meant...

I don't know why folks like yourself continue to be mad because the president won't "play along". This business about citizenship and Ayers and the presidents middle name, is just so insulting to the intelligence of not just him, but anybody else that can "think" that those who keep it up actually look like they have some sort of pathology going on - it's the most ridiculous thing I ever witnessed and I just don't know how your side can expect it to be taken seriously in any way.

Imperator · #33 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miranda

Shhhh... this is the best thread we've had in weeks!

yea well , notice he won't asnwer..

Speakeasy · #34 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Hey, Swoop, lets look at these other statutes from the same site:

Quote:

§338-20 Adoption. (a) In case of the adoption of any person born in the State, the department of health, upon receipt of a properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department, shall prepare a supplementary certificate in the name of the adopted person, as fixed or changed by the decree, and seal and file the original certificate of birth with the certified copy attached thereto.

(b) The registrar of births shall show on the supplemental birth certificate the names of parents as stated in the adoption decree pursuant to section 578-14.

(c) Any certified copy of final decree of adoption, or abstract thereof, of persons born in the State, rendered by courts of other states and territories subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, or courts of a foreign country, shall be considered properly certified when attested by the clerk of the court in which it was rendered with the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding judge, chancellor, or magistrate that the attestation is in due form.

(d) If no original certificate of birth shall be on file with the department, the department may require such evidence as it deems necessary to establish the facts of birth before preparing a supplementary certificate in the new name of the adopted person; provided that no such certificate shall be filed unless it shall be satisfactorily established that the adopted person was born in the State.

(e) The sealed documents may be opened by the department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a court order setting aside a decree of adoption, the department shall restore the original certificate to its original place in the files. [L 1949, c 327, §24; RL 1955, §57-23; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-20; am L 1978, c 50, §1; am L 1979, c 203, §2; am L 1980, c 153, §6 and c 232, §18; am L 1988, c 274, §2; am L 1990, c 338, §2]

Well, hey, I guess all those dates at the bottom are only for part E!

Quote:

§338-22 Other persons required to make records. Persons in charge of institutions for care or correction or for treatment of disease, injury, or childbirth shall record and report all statistical data required by this part relating to their inmates or patients. [L 1949, c 327, §26; RL 1955, §57-25; HRS §338-22]

Oh, whats this? I guess those dates are for the addendum to a bill with no addendums. I don't even know if addendum is the right word, actually...

Quote:

§338-25.5 Disinterment of human bodies. (a) No corpse, nor the remains of any dead human body, exclusive of ashes, shall be exposed, disturbed, or removed from its place of burial, nor shall the receptacle, container, or coffin holding the remains or corpse be opened, removed, or disturbed after due interment, except upon written application made to the director of health for a permit therefor and upon the issuance and according to the terms of a permit granted therefor by the director. After any removal or disturbance the grave shall be filled at once and restored to its former condition.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), the department of land and natural resources pursuant to sections 6E-43 and 6E-43.6 may authorize exposure, removal, disinterment, or any other act without obtaining a permit from the department of health. [L 1921, c 111, §1; RL 1925, §4493; RL 1935, §5800; am L 1937, c 195, §1; RL 1945, §11200; RL 1955, §276-1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §734-1; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1990, c 306, §14]

Once again, I guess those dates are only for part B?

Keep going, Swoop!

Miranda · #35 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

yea well , notice he won't asnwer..

Thats because the Empire collapsed months ago and he is still sensitive.

jet57 · #36 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

Watch after he leaves office it will come out that he was IN FACT NOT born in the US and we will have some fucking illegal alien running for president in 2016 with this precedent set by Obama.

Obama WAS NOT born in the United States of America.

This is what I mean by "pathology".

Swoop187 · #37 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Holy crap, you cannot be serious. That date is for when the entire statute went into effect, it's not specifically for part C. That would make absolutely no sense to date part C, but not part A and B.

And you wouldn't put "adopted" in if if it was written at that given date would you??????

I think not.

Its an addendum.

Quote:

In contracts

In other documents, most importantly in contracts, an addendum is an additional document not included in the main part of the contract which may contain additional terms, specifications, provisions, standard forms or other information. A contract addendum may also be called an appendix or a rider. Addendums are often used in standard form contracts to make changes or add specific detail. For example, an addendum might be added to a contract to change a date or add details as to delivery of goods or pricing. The Addendum should be referenced in the contract, or the contract should be referenced in the addendum, so that it's clear to which contract the addendum is modifying.

Schedules and exhibits are sub-categories of addendums, with schedules being related to numerical and time information, such as pricing and time-schedules, and exhibits used for examples of standard forms and different types of evidence or models.

MattLarson · #38 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Just curious - has anyone ever seen a copy of the "long form" Birth Certificates of:

Bush Jr.?
Clinton?
Bush Sr?
Reagan?
Carter?
Ford?
Nixon?
Johnson?
Kennedy?

(you get the idea...)

Matt

Speakeasy · #39 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imperator

yea well , notice he won't asnwer..

I was born in a hospital. Honest! A hospital at the top of the tallest mountain in the land, with rainbows cascading down around me and a fresh morning dew sparkling on the ground.

Swoop187 · #40 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Just curious - has anyone ever seen a copy of the "long form" Birth Certificates of:

Bush Jr.?
Clinton?
Bush Sr?
Reagan?
Carter?
Ford?
Nixon?
Johnson?
Kennedy?

(you get the idea...)

Matt

None have family members in other countries swearing up and down they were born there.

Speakeasy · #41 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

And you wouldn't put "adopted" in if if it was written at that given date would you??????

I don't think you understand the context in which 'adopted' is being used here.

Quote:

I think not.

Its an addendum.

That date is for the entire statute. Look at the other bills on the page, they all follow the same format, with the date the entire statute was adopted listed at the bottom of each. If changes are made, they record the date those changes were made, but also keep the original date from when the original statute went into law.

Speakeasy · #42 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

None have family members in other countries swearing up and down they were born there.

Neither does Obama.

Tim · #43 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I was born in a hospital. Honest! A hospital at the top of the tallest mountain in the land, with rainbows cascading down around me and a fresh morning dew sparkling on the ground.

What extraordinary powers of observation and perception you possessed as a newborn.

Remarkable even then, apparently.

(No unicorns?)

Swoop187 · #44 (**permalink**) 3 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Hey, Swoop, lets look at these other statutes from the same site:

Well, hey, I guess all those dates at the bottom are only for part E!

Oh, whats this? I guess those dates are for the addendum to a bill with no addendums. I don't even know if addendum is the right word, actually...

Once again, I guess those dates are only for part B?

Keep going, Swoop!

You have to be kidding me..

NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with any of this.