So no one has a principled argument against this? Will complying with this law even be a noticeable burden for candidates?
Printable View
So no one has a principled argument against this? Will complying with this law even be a noticeable burden for candidates?
Why is it so important that Obama not have to prove it again if he's already proven it once? It's not like this would cause Obama any kind of an inconvienence. Some campaign worker of his would be able to fill out all the paperwork in 15 minutes. If even that long.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Obama likes playing games. 1 term prez.
because he has already proved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
no dummy the game is passing stupid legislation about birth certificates.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Then he'd have absolutely nothing to worry about were he required to prove it again just like every other candidate wanting to be on the Arizona ballot would be required to. Especially considering how little effort on his part would be required. So there's no legitimacy to opposing the bill on those grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Still waiting for a principled argument against this . . .
what could change in 4 yrs?Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
With regards to where Obama was born, nothing. Which is exactly why your position on this topic is so absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
so it hasn't changed and you want him to show it again...got it. Great position deep thinker..Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
I just don't know how a state can impose it's own special requirements for a federal office. I thought the "Birthers" were big on the Constitution. This would appear to run afoul of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
no they are strict consitutionalists.. well most of the time anyways..Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Peabody
Is it not reasonable to expect a candidate's citizenship to be established in the nomination process? Is it reasonable to add an additional, likely redundant, step?Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
I would think not, because presumably Federal authorities vet Presidential candidates too. It's a straight reduplication of regulatory function, bureaucratic piling on, if you will.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
What warrants the reduplication? Has Federal vetting of candidates been shown to be unreliable or untrustworthy in some way?
In other words, perhaps there is some good reason no state has yet enacted such a law. Namely, because another government entity already does that job.
AZ's got bigger fish to fry than wasting time and catching shit from everyone simply to have one of Obama's aids fill out 15 minutes of paperwork. I'm amazed out how childish these AZ politicians are, they'd never have pulled this shit if McCain was President. How often does AZ vote for a Democrat President anyway? These losers wouldn't raise a stink if their side won.Quote:
Originally Posted by doobs
They're cowards, just like everyone else that suddenly woke up and smelt "the convenient portions" of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Total phonies. It'd be much easier and honest if they simply passed a law saying they will excluse Obama or anyone suspected of being a socialist. Get straight up into it instead of pulling your dick out hoping to fall into something. :king
Principled argument #1: this a solution in search of a problem.
Principled argument #2: it is reduplicative.
I want all candidates for elected office to prove they're eligible to hold the office they're seeking. You're the one who wants to make this about Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
:lol May you rest easy at night knowing that no one will ever accuse you of being a deep thinker.Quote:
Great position deep thinker..
How dare a business or government ask for such a thing, dummy!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Excluse: \iks-klüsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Contemporary English from ST Poster Stringer Bell
Date: 2010
To prevent or restrict the entrance of
To bar from participation, consideration, or inclusion by dismissal.
:lol:lol
So then you should be satisfied that has ALREADY shown it. You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Perhaps, but when has that ever stopped government before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
To what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Presidential elections are basically 51 separate elections (administered by the 50 states + DC). There is not, to my knowledge, any federal vetting of candidates for constitutional eligibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I'm 100% completely and absolutely satisfied that Obama has proven his American citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I'm making this about every candidate, regardless of their party.Quote:
You make this about Obama by wanting him to show it AGAIN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Shit, ya got me. I guess I officially gave up my right to argue in this thread. :rollin