[Rumor]

'Birther' not welcome at East Bay rally

Bill O'Reilly even called her a nut. That is pretty damn bad. She is also running for Secretary of State, luckily, she doesn't have a chance. However, I will make a note just in case I play pin the tail on the candidate.

[Simon]

The problem is not these people, it's the amount of media coverage they get. If every nut in the looney bin got as much coverage as the birthers there wouldn't be any air time left for such meaningful things as American Idol or Fly Girls.

[subego]

Can someone explain this birther thing to me.

Is the person Obama claims to be his mother not supposed to be his mother? I mean, even if she gave birth to him in Kenya, she was an American citizen, so he'd be one too, right?

P.S. There's an O'rly joke in here somewhere.

[Simon]

To become POTUS US citizenship is not enough. You need to be born an American citizen on US soil AFAIK.

[OreoCookie]

That's correct.
BTW, American soil also includes US military bases, for instance. Otherwise Senator McCain wouldn't have been able to run.

[subego]

Ah. I thought you just had to have been born a citizen. Thanks for the clarification.

[besson3c]

I hate the birther thing not only because the people promoting it are nuts, but also because it reeks of "let's use a little technicality to promote an agenda". Even if Obama wasn't born on US soil, so what? It doesn't affect his ability to do his job in the slightest. If you think Obama is a poor president, fine, but this has nothing to do with where he was born. The whole thing reeks of anal-retentiveness with a dash of "be afraid of foreigners".

The birther thing is sort of like raising a huge fit here because somebody's signature is a few pixels too tall

[OAW]

I wouldn't be so sure ....





OAW

[besson3c]

Because Obama is going to read that sign and think "hmmm, that lady has a point, I'm outta here!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can someone explain this birther thing to me.

Is the person Obama claims to be his mother not supposed to be his mother? I mean, even if she gave birth to him in Kenya, she was an American citizen, so he'd be one too, right?

I may be wrong, but I believe said rule only came into effect sometime after Barry was born. Prior to the change it was "had to be born on US soil".

IRS expanding the definitions to catch more peeps in the "citizen" tax trap, as far as I can tell.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Even if Obama wasn't born on US soil, so what? It doesn't affect his ability to do his job in the slightest.

Right, so give me the job. I'd be awesome at it.

[SpaceMonkey]

The children of two citizens are automatically natural-born citizens, regardless of location. There is no requirement that says that to be eligible to be President you need to be born on U.S. soil. The restriction prevents people who have not been citizens from birth from serving as President. The difference in Obama's case that makes the location relevant is that one of his parents is not a U.S. citizen, which introduces certain conditions.

The language in the Constitution is describing a general condition: to be president you need to have been a citizen from birth. The specific requirements to meet this condition (location, whether one or both of your parents need to have been a citizen, etc.) can vary and have varied over time as Congress has seen fit.

For more than you probably want to know, see:
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
and
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

Interestingly, the State Department's document states that: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right, so give me the job. I'd be awesome at it.

If you'd have spent most of your life or at least a considerable amount of time here in the US, sure, you'd be eligible in my books.

I'd imagine one of the first things you'd do as president would be to legalize pet monkeys, right?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd imagine one of the first things you'd do as president would be to legalize pet monkeys, right?

Of course. Who the hell wouldn't want to legalise pet monkeys?
Oh. And I'd make you all spell things properly.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I wouldn't be so sure ....





OAW

At least she can spell correctly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course. Who the hell wouldn't want to legalise pet monkeys?
Oh. And I'd make you all spell things properly.

Will you legalize the proton pack?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I hate the birther thing not only because the people promoting it are nuts, but also because it reeks of "let's use a little technicality to promote an agenda". Even if Obama wasn't born on US soil, so what? It doesn't affect his ability to do his job in the slightest. If you think Obama is a poor president, fine, but this has nothing to do with where he was born. The whole thing reeks of anal-retentiveness with a dash of "be afraid of foreigners".

The birther thing is sort of like raising a huge fit here because somebody's signature is a few pixels too tall

I wouldn't call the constitutional requirement, the President must be a US Citizen, a mere technicality. That's the problem with liberals. The Constitution is looked upon as mere technicalities to be circumvented. I might add, some Republicans as well. There! You have the first plank of the Tea Party. Strict Constructionism which proscribes limits on Federal Power. Before you ask, I'm not a birther. I would have hoped Obama would have been properly vetted before he was sworn in. Though I admit, I have been somewhat parochial in my political thinking. The last two years have really opened my eyes. Obama is a mere puppet and I was a fool to think think there were serious differences between Democrats and Republicans. The American people are being played for fools by the political class. We'll see how sophisticated they really are in November. Or not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I wouldn't call the constitutional requirement, the President must be a US Citizen, a mere technicality.

I believe he was referring to the technicality of disqualifying Obama for not being born on US soil. Not the constitutional requirement.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Before you ask, I'm not a birther. I would have hoped Obama would have been properly vetted before he was sworn in.

He wasn't?

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Though I admit, I have been somewhat parochial in my political thinking. The last two years have really opened my eyes. Obama is a mere puppet and I was a fool to think think there were serious differences between Democrats and Republicans. The American people are being played for fools by the political class. We'll see how sophisticated they really are in November. Or not.

And how will you judge that? By whether they vote in the party of your preference or not? By what you just stated, as long as they elect politicians, they've failed. So I think it's safe to say... they're gonna fail.

[OAW]

Here's the bottom line with these "birthers" .....

You could show them a videotape of baby Obama coming out of his mother's snatch with a "Welcome to Pearl Harbor" sign and navy ships in the background ... and these knuckleheads still wouldn't believe he was born in the US! The fundamental issue here is that these people simply don't accept Obama's legitimacy as President. The "citizenship" issue is merely the pretext to express that sentiment.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You can show them a videotape of baby Obama coming out of his mother's snatch with a "Welcome to Pearl Harbor" sign and navy ships in the background ... and these knuckleheads still wouldn't believe he was born in the US.

It was faked... just like the moon landing!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It was faked... just like the moon landing!

Which was indeed fake. Why? You should have a base up there by now. Don't tell me you can't afford a space program when you're printing money and bailing banks out to the tune of trillions.

[sek929]

Americans are idiots anyways, we should outsource all of our politicians.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

I wouldn't call the constitutional requirement, the President must be a US Citizen, a mere technicality. That's the problem with liberals. The Constitution is looked upon as mere technicalities to be circumvented. I might add, some Republicans as well. There! You have the first plank of the Tea Party. Strict Constructionism which proscribes limits on Federal Power. Before you ask, I'm not a birther. I would have hoped Obama would have been properly vetted before he was sworn in. Though I admit, I have been somewhat parochial in my political thinking. The last two years have really opened my eyes. Obama is a mere puppet and I was a fool to think think there were serious differences between Democrats and Republicans. The American people are being played for fools by the political class. We'll see how sophisticated they really are in November. Or not.

Since when did the constitution become the damn bible of the country?

I get tired of constitution based arguments. For starters, the vast majority of the time they are used to equate unconstitutional to equal "I don't like" in a very one-sided and hypocritical way, in line with your pointing out the minimal of differences between both parties. Secondly, so many of the people making these arguments don't seem to know much about the constitution anyway (e.g. rabid tea party nutters). Thirdly, the constitution is not the bible. It does not explain and provide us answers to all of the political issues of modern day. Fourthly, it is so often used as a weapon, something to claim as their own - as if it is impossible for both parties to respect the constitution.

The same can be said for empty rhetoric such as "freedom", and the war of words between talking heads trying to make the case why they love freedom even more than their opponents...

"I love freedom THIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS much, and my saying that freedom is a good thing is profound! Also, I like ice cream!!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Since when did the constitution become the damn bible of the country?

September 17, 1787.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

September 17, 1787.

Just to clarify, I meant the bible in terms of "must follow to the letter", not the bible in terms of its historical importance or high regard that it is held in.

In saying this I'm not trying to undermine the constitution, just trying to be practical. How useful is it when we debate what our founding fathers would have wanted when it comes to credit default swaps?

[besson3c]

Also, why is it rarely pointed out that maybe our founding fathers wouldn't have been terribly happy about the greed which is dominating the country these days?

By saying that I'm not saying that we should try to level the playing field, that there is something morally wrong with the free market, blah blah blah. I'm just saying that there is a balance in there somewhere, and I doubt that our founding fathers really could have comprehended the manner, technicalities, and perhaps magnitude in which greed rules all today.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I wouldn't be so sure ....





OAW

Damn Philip Berg (D) supporters!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Also, why is it rarely pointed out that maybe our founding fathers wouldn't have been terribly happy about the greed which is dominating the country these days?

Because their concern was founded on the inevitable greed of a central authority run amok, they'd be most disappointed about the greed which is dominating the country these days, yes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just to clarify, I meant the bible in terms of "must follow to the letter", not the bible in terms of its historical importance or high regard that it is held in.

In saying this I'm not trying to undermine the constitution, just trying to be practical. How useful is it when we debate what our founding fathers would have wanted when it comes to credit default swaps?

The Constitution was sufficiently vague to allow for unforeseen, future crisis by handling it through a general disregard for an overarching, centralized authority. Our founding fathers would likely have warned us about the synthetic bubble created by government interference; the "appearance" of wealth that would not sustain the reality of a lacking income. We're merely playing by the rules crafted by the central authority.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Crash_the_Tea_Party.org
... because when a grassroots movement of disagreement offends thee, become a racist moron and join the movement to try and bring it down from the inside.

BTW, I notice he's pretty lonely there. Must not have felt welcome among the collective.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Crash_the_Tea_Party.org
... because when a grassroots movement of disagreement offends thee, become a racist moron and join the movement to try and bring it down from the inside.

BTW, I notice he's pretty lonely there. Must not have felt welcome among the collective.

What evidence do you have that the tea party crashes are bigger in population than the genuine dumbasses?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Damn Philip Berg (D) supporters!

Busted! Good one.

[ironknee]

"nazi" shows up at tea party

YouTube - How to Deal With TEA Party Infiltrators.

was this guy for real?

why? why not?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

"nazi" shows up at tea party

YouTube - How to Deal With TEA Party Infiltrators.

was this guy for real?

why? why not?

Maybe I'm naive, but he seemed real to me.

That isn't to say that I would take this one step further and generalize about tea partiers in general, I think that people in general are pretty dumb.

I will say that I've yet to see anything terribly impressive come out of the tea party though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What evidence do you have that the tea party crashes are bigger in population than the genuine dumbasses?

I don't, but when you know there's a concerted effort to hijack free speech you have to consider the possibility. In fact upon viewing the video of that racist nutcase the others referred to as a Soros plant, you see video after video on the right-hand side all showing leftist infiltration.

I don't think the guy in the video had anything to do with any Tea Party movement. He said he was there to "learn" and offered absolutely no reason for being there other than "hey look at me, I'm a t-shirt wearing racist." He could easily be a leftist plant.

Funny story, my wife went to an Earth Day celebration at our local park yesterday and the first activist she saw was a Tea Party guy who was yelling expletives about Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress. My wife went up to him and calmly explained why he's misrepresenting the Tea Party sentiment and after a mumble and grumble he came back up to my wife and apologized. He then simply walked around doing his thing without the expletives.

Next, a guy approached my wife with a petition to repeal DADT and my wife stated that she was there to enjoy a beautiful day with her friends and wasn't interested in talking politics or signing petitions today. The guy literally started shaking yelling with spit flying out of his mouth BIGOT! BIGOT! BIGOT! My wife calmly explained that he was misrepresenting his sentiment and he wouldn't hear of it. He walked away yelling F-ing BIGOT!!!

Conclusion: you can reason with people on the right. People on the left are unreasonable and clinically angry.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Conclusion: you can reason with people on the right. People on the left are unreasonable and clinically angry.

Are you *really* drawing that broad of a conclusion based only on one sample from each side? I really hope that you're just trying to make the point that limited samples cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about a population.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you *really* drawing that broad of a conclusion based only on one sample from each side? I really hope that you're just trying to make the point that limited samples cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about a population.

While the winkee face should imply a tongue-in-cheek demeanor, I have noticed an increasing degree of irrational anger from the left in the past several years. Just an anecdote, that's all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you *really* drawing that broad of a conclusion based only on one sample from each side?

Any rational person can see that this is a valid point whatever the sample size.

I've never met a leftie who's fully rational and not driven to a large extent by hive peer pressure. Ever. And I've met a lot of lefties.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While the winkee face should imply a tongue-in-cheek demeanor ... Just an anecdote, that's all.

That's what I had hoped, but obviously wasn't certain.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I have noticed an increasing degree of irrational anger from the left in the past several years.

Agreed. However, I would expand the statement to say that I've noticed an increasing degree of irrational anger from the both liberals and conservatives in the past several years. The polarization of Western politics seems to result in people of all political persuasions frothing at the mouth whenever they encounter a view that their political leaders have been campaigning against.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's what I had hoped, but obviously wasn't certain.


Agreed. However, I would expand the statement to say that I've noticed an increasing degree of irrational anger from the both liberals and conservatives in the past several years. The polarization of Western politics seems to result in people of all political persuasions frothing at the mouth whenever they encounter a view that their political leaders have been campaigning against.

I agree.

It's pretty much pointless to try to keep score this way. For every crazy person on the left there are always people from, say, the Christian right perfectly willing to say jaw dropping stuff, but what's the point? People are ignorant and hateful, this is not the exclusive domain of any party. All of this score keeping is pretty much pointless, always debatable, and definitely not actionable.

I said that the tea party crowd has not impressed me, but I should have qualified this by saying that no protest group really has, including Cindy Sheehan and any other group I've ever known about it.

[besson3c]

[besson3c]

[OAW]

And the madness continues ....

If Arizona lawmakers have their way, President Obama might have to prove he's a U.S. citizen to get on the state's ballot in 2012.

On Monday, Arizona's House of Representatives voted 31-22 to advance legislation that would require presidential candidates to provide documents, including birth certificates, proving their citizenship.

The measure, an amendment to a state Senate bill, must now clear another vote in the House before going back to the Senate. If it clears both chambers, the bill could soon go to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is a Republican. Brewer's office declined to comment on whether the governor supports the proposal.

Critics deride the measure as a "birther bill." That name derives from a fringe movement, dubbed "the birthers," that questions whether President Obama was born in the United States despite proof that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors about the president's birthplace.

According to the Arizona legislation, parties seeking to put candidates on a state ballot would have to provide "documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate's age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for president of The United States."

If the Arizona secretary of state "has reasonable cause to believe that the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law, the Secretary of State shall not place that candidate's name on the ballot," the bill states.

The amendment's sponsor, Republican Rep. Judy M. Burges, said through a spokesman that the bill is "an attempt to bring back transparency and confidence in the electoral process."

Rep. Krysten Sinema, assistant Democratic leader in the House, called Burges' amendment "crazy" but said it is likely to pass.

"This is just a political statement about our president, which is offensive," Sinema said. "They think that [President] Obama was born in Kenya, even though we have proof that he was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii," Sinema said.

But Sinema predicted the measure would not pass constitutional muster. States have rarely if ever waded into this area. Arizona has "become the laughingstock of the nation," Sinema said.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Arizona lawmakers still pushing ‘birther’ measure � - Blogs from CNN.com



OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Irritating, but I don't see how it would "not pass constitutional muster." States prescribe other requirements for office-seekers to appear on their ballots. Obama can submit the verification already provided by the state of Hawaii, and then we can let the loonies try to explain why that certification isn't good enough.

[Shaddim]

Good. I really don't care how they remove him from office, just as long as it's done. If they have to try every litigious means at their disposal, I'm fine with that.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If they have to try every litigious means at their disposal, I'm fine with that.

And since none of those shenanigans will ever succeed I'm fine with that too.

[OAW]

Well apparently the Republican Party in Arizona wants a lot to do with the "Birthers" ....

Originally Posted by CNN: Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

First up tonight, the birthers are back. Legislators in a number of states are listening, and Arizona Republicans are trying to pass laws in response -- the Arizona House of Representatives this week passing legislation to require a candidate to show a birth certificate in order to get on the presidential ballot.

Five other states are considering the idea. But, before we go any further, let's just walk over to the wall. Let's just get a couple of things out of the way here, so we're all on the same page.

This is an official copy of President Obama's birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, certification of live birth. Now, the state went paperless nine years ago, so the original is now in an electronic form on a server somewhere.

On the back of official copy, right down here, is a stamp from Hawaii's state registrar. Doubters claim the certificate is unsigned and therefore bogus. In fact, a stamp is how they do it in Hawaii.

Now, take a look at this. Let's just move this down. Let's move that down away. They also claim it doesn't have a raised seal, which, as you can see, it does. The photos, by the way, are from the nonpartisan FactCheck.org. They were taken at Obama headquarters in Chicago. Yet, cruise the Web, and you will find plenty of other documents, like this one, purporting to show Mr. Obama was actually born in Kenya, even though the birth certificate -- take a look at this -- actually gets the name of the country wrong. It says Republic of Kenya. At the time, it wasn't called the Republic of Kenya, as it says it was right there.

But, we mentioned, a lot of people are buying this notion of a foreign president. Check it out. this is pretty stunning. This is a "New York Times"/CBS News poll showing 20 percent surveyed, one in five, said President Obama is Kenyan by birth. Another 23 percent said they just don't know. Only 58 percent said the president of the United States is an American.

Now, granted, that's a majority, but, still, can you recall any other time when a significant number of people actually had any doubt about their president?

Now, here's what "The Arizona Republic" editorial board writes about the proposed birth certificate law in state. This is not a national thing. This is in the state. "Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who lives in the real world, not on conspiracy island, points out that it could be unconstitutional for a state to impose its own requirements on federal office. The proposed legislation is worse than a foolish waste of time," "The Arizona Republic" says, and "suggests Arizona is a place where any crackpot whim can be enshrined in law."

So, "Keeping Them Honest" tonight, we're going to ask whether this bill or anything like it is even constitutional. We will also take a closer look at this 20 percent, the birthers, and what they believe.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

::::::: OAW: my comments inserted inline ::::::::::

COOPER: Joining us now is Arizona Republican State Representative Cecil Ash, who voted for the measure.

Thanks very much for being with us.

Do you believe Barack Obama is an American born in Hawaii?

CECIL ASH (R), ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: All the evidence I have seen is that he was born in Hawaii. I have seen a birth certificate on the Internet. Of course, you can't believe everything you see on the Internet. So, I have never personally investigated it or studied it.

OAW: So we start off by not answering the question. This ought to be real interesting.

COOPER: But, Oklahoma, it sounds like you're -- really saying you believe it, but you don't believe what you read on the Internet. So, you do believe he's an American, though?

ASH: Yes, I do.

OAW: Slick maneuver. The issue isn't if he's an "American" or even a "citizen". The issue is if he is a "natural born citizen".

COOPER: I mean, as you said, the certificate of live birth is available for anyone to see. It's been released. And, in Hawaii, there are only electronic records at this point, and the health department there has verified it. They have made public statements.

So, why vote for something which perpetuates these false Internet rumors?

ASH: Well, Anderson, I think there's been a lot of controversy over the issue. It's created a division among a lot of people in the United States. And, for better or worse, many people don't believe he is a U.S. citizen. They believe he has loyalties -- divided loyalties, I suppose you could say.

OAW: Oh yeah ... you're doing this to eliminate the controversy. Riiiiggggghhhhttttt!

COOPER: Right, but those people are wrong. I mean, he is a U.S. citizen.

ASH: Well, you're telling me that he's wrong. I have never investigated that. If he is, then he has nothing to fear.

COOPER: But -- but, I mean, that -- the information is out there. It has been released. It has been shown. There are some people who don't believe it, but there are also some people who believe that the moon is made out of cheese. And you can say you have never investigated it, but I think you would probably say the moon is not made out of cheese.

OAW: Ouch!!!

ASH: Well, I certainly would.

But the reason I spoke up on this bill is simply because there is a lot of division in the country. And I believe this would put an end to any future controversy about a president's qualifications.

OAW: Sure buddy.

COOPER: You told our producer you voted for this because you get a lot of calls from constituents with questions based on things they have read on the Internet.

I mean, isn't it your job as a leader to actually lead, not to throw up your hands and say, well, who knows what's real or not on the Internet, to actually say, well, actually, you know, Hawaii has released this information, and it's factually correct?

ASH: Well, as I said, I haven't personally investigated that. But I -- I think that, if -- if...

OAW: Oh we're back on that BS again?

COOPER: But, I mean, there's plenty of things you believe that you have not personally investigated.

ASH: That's true.

COOPER (aka Master Yoda): Why, this, are you holding onto?

OAW: Ahhhh ... the million dollar question!

ASH: Well, what we're requiring here is for a -- a presidential candidate to demonstrate he is qualified.

And I don't think having any presidential candidate -- candidate show that he's qualified by demonstrating the requirements of the requirements, that there's any problem with that.

OAW: First of all you didn't answer the question. And then you say "demonstrating the requirements of the requirements"? WTF? Speak English much?

COOPER: You told my producer you thought the president spent a million dollars fighting the release of his birth certificate, and then that raised concerns for you.

(CROSSTALK)

ASH: That's what I have heard. As I said, it...

COOPER: Right. But that's not -- you know that's actually not true?

ASH: I -- I don't know that that's not true. As I said, I haven't studied it. You get a lot of information on the Internet. As you know, much of it is inaccurate.

This has not been a focus of my attention for the last two years. But I know it is a matter of -- of controversy for many people. And I looked at this as simply a -- a means to end that controversy.

OAW: Seems like you're kicking up a lot of dust for something that you "haven't studied".

COOPER: You -- you also said to our producer that the president identified himself as a foreigner on his college application.

ASH: Yes.

COOPER: You know that's not true, right?

ASH: I didn't know that that was not true.

OAW: That's because you believe your own BS!

COOPER: That's a story that was put out on April Fool's Day. It's a fake AP news story.

OAW:

ASH: Like I said, I -- I'm reluctant to read anything I read on the Internet, including the evidence about his birth certificate.

This -- this is not the responsibility of the average citizen.

OAW: How the hell are you "reluctant to read anything I read on the internet"? That's a statement that borders on being "Palin-esque" in its incoherence. And even if you meant you are "reluctant to believe anything I read on the internet" ... you already said earlier that you believed it. You stated it as fact to the producer. You agreed when asked about it. Dumb a*s!!!

COOPER: So -- so -- so, the only -- the only way you will believe a birth certificate is if, what, you see it for yourself at the state office in Hawaii? I mean, to not believe anything that is put out by anyone, then how can you believe anything? I mean...

ASH: Well, it's -- it...

(LAUGHTER)

ASH: It's not my -- it's not my responsibility...

COOPER: Do you believe...

(CROSSTALK)

ASH: ... to check the qualifications.

When someone comes to be on the ballot in Arizona, it's not my responsibility to check those qualifications. It's the responsibility of the secretary of state.

And, so, all we said is, if -- if it's required that you be a natural-born citizen, he should determine that. Now, you -- you argue this in terms of what's happened to Barack Obama. I'm thinking in terms of the next nominees down the road.

OAW:! Oh yeah. The 2012 Presidential election has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Riiiiiggghhhhhhttttttt!!!

COOPER: But this is all about Barack Obama. I mean, this is -- this is completely partisan, no?

ASH: Well -- well, that's why I spoke up on the bill. They were -- the other side, the Democrats, were saying this is racist; it's to embarrass Barack Obama.

OAW: Because it quite obviously is. Even Stevie Wonder can see that!

And I spoke up to say, this is not a matter of race. It's not a racist issue. I'm merely voting for the -- as you call it, the birthers amendment.

COOPER: So, where was George Bush born?

ASH: I have no idea where George Bush was born.

COOPER: But you -- that wasn't a concern for you when he was in office?

ASH: The issue never came up.

OAW: Oh I wonder why?

COOPER: What about Bill Clinton? Where was he born?

ASH: I have no idea.

COOPER: So, all of a sudden, you're concerned about where the president of the United States is born, based on calls you're getting from constituents who are misinformed?

OAW: Bingo!

ASH: Actually, I did not get any calls from constituents until after this bill was passed.

OAW: STOP THE PRESSES!!! Just earlier Anderson said "You told our producer you voted for this BECAUSE you get a lot of calls from constituents with questions based on things they have read on the Internet." And you didn't dispute it. But now you claim you didn't get any calls from constituents until AFTER you voted for it?? A tad bit contradictory n'est-ce pas?

But I don't think there's any harm in requiring someone to demonstrate that they meet the requirements for the position. Now, nobody can deny -- regardless of what you believe about President Obama, nobody can deny that there's been a controversy. You may deny...

COOPER: Well, yes, but there's controversy about everything. People -- and there -- but there are things called facts, and you know the facts. You are a leader. You know the facts.

Isn't it your job -- when a constituent calls and says, gosh, I'm reading all this stuff on the Internet that President Obama was a -- was foreign exchange student, to say, actually, no, he wasn't?

I mean, isn't it -- that your -- part of your job?

ASH: Look, President Obama is president now. For the future, this kind of controversy should not come up again, because they will have to establish that up front. And that will avoid this kind of controversy in the future.

OAW: Way to not answer the question. Yet again.

COOPER: To your critics who will say that you and the other Republicans -- only Republicans voted for this -- are simply pandering to a misinformed electorate, that, rather than setting the record straight yourselves, you're just pandering. You're kind of throwing up your hands and saying, gosh, I don't know, there's a lot of stuff on the Internet, a lot of it seems controversial, we need this bill, rather than saying, actually, this information is false.

ASH: Well, I think our purpose was to avoid this kind of controversy in the future. And I think that's appropriate. That's our job as leaders is to eliminate the possibility of this kind of controversy in the future.

OAW: And this eliminates the controversy how? For a party that's always harping about "State's Rights" ... if this passes the State of Arizona is basically telling the State of Hawaii that they don't believe what their elected officials have stated about the situation. That the official pronouncements of the State of Hawaii on the matter don't mean sh*t in Arizona. That if the Secretary of State in Arizona doesn't "believe" what the officials in another state says ... or if s/he doesn't like their system for tracking and certifying live births ... or whatever ... then a presidential candidate (i.e. Barack Obama) can be kept off the Arizona ballot at his/her discretion.

Yeah. That'll end all the "controversy" for sure.

COOPER: State Representative Cecil Ash, I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir.

ASH: Thank you very much. Bye.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CNN.com - Transcripts



OAW

[besson3c]

It's kind of sad that a politician that you'd think would naturally be good at debating stuff is clearly out-debated by a talking head. I mean, that guy's arguments were no different than the kind of one-sided debates we'd see in here, yet this guy is an elected official.

If Jon Stewart is right that the news box is becoming more like the comedy box, then I'd add that the far right and left are moving rapidly towards the 12 year old box.

[BadKosh]

I guess she's lying?

YouTube - Michelle Obama Admits Kenya is Barack Hussein Obama's Home Country

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Since when did the constitution become the damn bible of the country?

I get tired of constitution based arguments. For starters, the vast majority of the time they are used to equate unconstitutional to equal "I don't like" in a very one-sided and hypocritical way, in line with your pointing out the minimal of differences between both parties. Secondly, so many of the people making these arguments don't seem to know much about the constitution anyway (e.g. rabid tea party nutters). Thirdly, the constitution is not the bible. It does not explain and provide us answers to all of the political issues of modern day. Fourthly, it is so often used as a weapon, something to claim as their own - as if it is impossible for both parties to respect the constitution.

The same can be said for empty rhetoric such as "freedom", and the war of words between talking heads trying to make the case why they love freedom even more than their opponents...

"I love freedom THIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSS much, and my saying that freedom is a good thing is profound! Also, I like ice cream!!"

Why not read "The Federalist Papers" instead of showing your lack of knowledge on this? They will explain the 'why' of the Constitution. It's not the 'living, breathing document' the revisionist leftists would have you believe.