[mlo]

"I especially enjoyed the argument used by one of the usual suspects who said that a person claiming to be a PhD had the burden of proof to demonstrate that he in fact had a doctorate. But it’s the so-called “birthers’” responsibility to proove that the Usurper was not eligible."

It is up to the person making a claim to support that claim. They don't get taken seriously by default. If someone claims to have a Phd and uses that to claim expertise, it is up to them to back it up. If someone claims that Obama is legally ineligible to be president, it is up to them to back that up.

I know what you were getting at is that Obama should have to prove his eligibility. And I don't disagree. But that's another subject. He has proved everything he was required to prove to anyone he was required to prove it to. If those procedures weren't thorough enough then we need to change them. But that doesn't prove he is ineligible in fact. That claim requires the persons making it to prove it.

[Scanian]

Don’t post to me. I have no interest in anything you have to say.