While others are trying to paint this topic as ‘fringe’, I’m simply pointing out that there’s nothing unreasonable in saying that it’s Obama’s job to convince voters that he qualifies. And it’s a matter of honor not to vote for someone who has failed to convince you he’s qualified. What’s fringe about being Constitutional?
OH I know. I wasn’t picking on you so much as expressing my frustration of hoping for a silver bullet which I think hasn’t helped us. And, I, of course, could be wrong. But this sure looks dead end to me. But then again, I don’t have to litigate it. I can just sit back and watch. hehe
While others are trying to paint this topic as ‘fringe’, I’m simply pointing out that there’s nothing unreasonable in saying that it’s Obama’s job to convince voters that he qualifies. And it’s a matter of honor not to vote for someone who has failed to convince you he’s qualified. What’s fringe about being Constitutional?Everyone owns their own vote and can decide whom to vote for on whatever grounds they want. You can oppose Obama because you don't like his haircut.
Obama has met his Constitutional obligation by producing the COLB. This issue is intended to drive perception (and it's not working at all). It's fringe because it has nothing to do with the Constitution.