Replies

Here you are shortly after the election on a thread about eligibility.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138733/posts

You say...

“Your outrage mirrors my own. Obama is set up to be my president and I, as a verifiable citizen, lack standing on a Constitutional issue? That is, as you say, completely outrageous. Some folks just don’t belong in the legal system. Too bad they have no shame.”

12 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:26:55 AM by so_real

No mention of the “Lincoln Bedroom” standard - no mention that release of the long form was unnecessary because he has a foreign national father and the standard is “born in country of two citizen parents”.

Why were you holding out on us? Why not recount information you learned in High School civics class?

Later in the thread an actual ‘it doesn't matter what the certificate says’ post emerges........

Unfortunately it is another dual citizenship argument - but it does FINALLY touch on the fact that his father's citizenship might be the magic key!!!! But it is again not utilizing the standard that is now supposedly axiomatic - it is arguing that England giving 0bama citizenship at birth is the issue.

“One unique (AFAIK) aspect of Donofrio’s effort is that it does not rest on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. It is predicated on the question of the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which has never been tested, and which is affected by Obama’s father's citizenship status.”

29 posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:49:30 PM by Conservatives_Unite

Notice how the poster raises this as a “unique aspect”? Because at the time most birthers were fixated on Hawaii - and if 0bama could prove he was born in Hawaii that would be sufficient - but they were not convinced by the short form.

So when?

Weak ... here try this one :

Actually ... if you consider original intent ... an American born woman with a husband, or sperm donor, of foreign nationality could not have a “natural born” child at all ...

28 posted on Wed 26 Nov 2008 10:42:33 PM CST by so_real

The whole "Why were you holding out on us?" game is transparent foolishness. It's just a blatant attempt to change the course of discussion and gain an offensive. Debate 101. I have to thank another of your team for pointing that link out to me on another thread. I didn't really feel the need to recall history in an effort to go on the defensive, but since one of you guys did the research for me, I made a note of it. Let me know if you find a post of mine prior to Nov 2008; this is the oldest one pointed out to me thus far.

If your civics teacher didn't provide this education to you, or you missed class that day, so be it. I don't really care. But to call all your fellow FReepers liars just because you were left out, is ridiculous. Maybe you were taught one way, and we were taught another. But ... at least we recognize there is a genuine dispute as to the material facts and are willing to see it adjudicated and decided lawfully. You would rather toss insults around. I don't think that is the American way. I don't think you are being reasonable.

So I ask again ... what is your agenda here?