Biden popularity

Status

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
43,240
113
Gtown-ish
Then you have a very poor understanding of my political outlook.
Maybe you should talk about what is your political outlook instead of dragging people when they get it wrong.

So it should go something like this:

INGO: Kut believes blah, blah, and blah.

Kut: Huh? No I don't, I believe this other thing.

INGO: Oh. I see.

Jamil: Just be straight up.
 

churchmouse

I still care....Really
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
178   0   0
Dec 7, 2011
180,231
0
Speedway area
Maybe you should talk about what is your political outlook instead of dragging people when they get it wrong.

So it should go something like this:

INGO: Kut believes blah, blah, and blah.

Kut: Huh? No I don't, I believe this other thing.

INGO: Oh. I see.

Jamil: Just be straight up.
That would be really nice...:)
 

Chewie

Old, Tired, Grumpy, Skeptical
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Dec 28, 2012
1,191
83
Martinsville
What trend?

Hidden histories? Full disclosure ignored? True intent? False narratives? I could go on and on but rest assured of one thing, both sides are guilty as sin. But the liberal side just seems a little easier to spot recently. But I freely admit I am biased even though I try not to be.
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
43,240
113
Gtown-ish
Hidden histories? Full disclosure ignored? True intent? False narratives? I could go on and on but rest assured of one thing, both sides are guilty as sin. But the liberal side just seems a little easier to spot recently. But I freely admit I am biased even though I try not to be.
You have to be careful about all those things because they're "hidden". Who uncovered them? Are they just gaslighting? How did the sources that reveal all the hidden stuff discover the truth? Is it credible? Can you verify the information they gave you yourself?

Hidden histories: if you can't verify it independently, yet you believe the hidden history "revealed", maybe you fell for something.

True intent: This is never knowable unless the person reveals it in a credible way, for example, admitting to it when they didn't think unintended people were listening.

False narratives: This is at least possible to uncover often enough. For example, the news reporting "hands up, don't shoot" which they're still putting forward even after the eye witness admitted to police that it really didn't happen that way.
 

Chewie

Old, Tired, Grumpy, Skeptical
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Dec 28, 2012
1,191
83
Martinsville
You have to be careful about all those things because they're "hidden". Who uncovered them? Are they just gaslighting? How did the sources that reveal all the hidden stuff discover the truth? Is it credible? Can you verify the information they gave you yourself?

Hidden histories: if you can't verify it independently, yet you believe the hidden history "revealed", maybe you fell for something.

True intent: This is never knowable unless the person reveals it in a credible way, for example, admitting to it when they didn't think unintended people were listening.

False narratives: This is at least possible to uncover often enough. For example, the news reporting "hands up, don't shoot" which they're still putting forward even after the eye witness admitted to police that it really didn't happen that way.

How does minimally visible sound instead of hidden? Partially hidden? Known of but not visible to the public? You understand exactly what I meant.
 

jamil

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jul 17, 2011
43,240
113
Gtown-ish
How does minimally visible sound instead of hidden? Partially hidden? Known of but not visible to the public? You understand exactly what I meant.
Well, I'm not playing any games, if that's what you're wondering. I took it that you meant it how you said it. So maybe you could give an example of something minimally visible that is known, but not all that visible to the public. And how that applies to the "trends" you were talking about.
 

Chewie

Old, Tired, Grumpy, Skeptical
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Dec 28, 2012
1,191
83
Martinsville
Well, I'm not playing any games, if that's what you're wondering. I took it that you meant it how you said it. So maybe you could give an example of something minimally visible that is known, but not all that visible to the public. And how that applies to the "trends" you were talking about.

For obama.... college records.
For bidiot.....Ukraine.
For trump.....taxes
 
Last edited:

Timjoebillybob

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Feb 27, 2009
5,721
99
Hawaii has a birth certificate (long form) which is evidence of local birth and a certificate of live birth (short form) which is not--just an identity card. Even Sun Yat-sen had one when he was born in China. That is all Obama ever coughed up that was not computer generated.
Actually Yat-sen had a certificate of Hawaiian birth issued by the govt. But that was also very shortly after Hawaii became a territory and long before it became a state. He was issued it based on his affidavit and witnesses affidavits that he was born there some 30+ years before, long before it even became a territory. Although some allege that the Secretary of the Territory knew that the affidavits were BS and issued it anyway.

I suppose that may be an exception. Regardless, the point was that pretty much everyone has some kind of documentation that proves where they were born, who their parents are, and what was their citizenship at birth.


There may be different names for birth certificates. I'm not sure what every state calls theirs. But there is a difference between a document issued by a hospital and a document issued by a government agency that certifies who the newborn is, where he or she was born, who the parents are, and what was their citizenship at birth.



But anyway, I can't believe we're still talking about Obama's citizenship status. Who gives a flying ****? Well. Apparently enough people do to carry on an argument still. STILL! So the better question is, why should we give a flying ****? Obama is over. Obiden is president now. America is ****ed. But at least a couple of people are happy because they get to drag INGO.
That exception (or at least one similar) occurred pretty recently, Ted Cruz was born in Canada to an American citizen mother and his father was at the time I believe a legal permanent resident of the US under an asylum claim.

Per your link the document that Obama released contains everything needed for a birth certificate. Also it seems to refer to Puerto Rico.

And as for your last paragraph, I can agree completely.
It is not complicated, the candidate must prove they are eligible. Just because there were less complicated times in the past when everyone in the community knew when and where Johnny was born so the question was moot does not mean it doesn't have to be proven now.
The constitution does not require a BC, but the burden of proof is for the candidate to prove they are eligible not for political opponents to prove they are not.
So the exact opposite of how everything else is treated in the US pretty much? In just about every other instance the accuser bears the burden of proof.
 
Last edited:

foszoe

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Jun 2, 2011
10,757
113
Actually we just saw exactly what the results of TDS stage 4 has on a normal thinking human being.

You feel free to pick which member I refer to.
Can someone spell out for me the requirements/diagnoses needed for each stage?
 

IndyDave1776

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Jan 12, 2012
25,428
113
So the exact opposite of how everything else is treated in the US pretty much? In just about every other instance the accuser bears the burden of proof.

This isn't quite true. It applies to criminal law but just stop and think of the things we do that require affirmative proof in advance including the exercise of rights. Pink cards would be a good example.

I was required to provide more affirmative proof of identity, citizenship, and integrity to drive a truck than Obama was to be president. There is a serious problem with that.
 

foszoe

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Jun 2, 2011
10,757
113
This isn't quite true. It applies to criminal law but just stop and think of the things we do that require affirmative proof in advance including the exercise of rights. Pink cards would be a good example.

I was required to provide more affirmative proof of identity, citizenship, and integrity to drive a truck than Obama was to be president. There is a serious problem with that.
I wish someone would tie their justification directly to the constitution. I made a long post about it with several points.

How were such things as constitutional meaning decided before by a group of citizens deciding or courts and legislators?


Driving is a privilege issued by the State. It doesn't seem apples to apples.

When I read it, it sound's very similar to the democratic argument that a 2nd amendment is a right but we you need to prove you are a proper person and carry your license to carry at all times.

I made an example of the 2nd saying if you are stopped by a LEO solely because you are open carrying a pistol, If he asks your name and to see your paper proof, are you required to show it?

Who decided whether you did or not? Citizens, courts, or legislators?

All of my posts on this birth certificate issue have been about how the world really is not how it should be. That includes these questions.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
7,281
113
North Central
So the exact opposite of how everything else is treated in the US pretty much? In just about every other instance the accuser bears the burden of proof.
Nope, WTF can you get from the government without ID? The only thing that comes to mind is a vote.

Can you get social security without proof of who you are? You cannot even get a job without proving you are approved by the government. Everything requires ID.

Not sure where the thinking comes from from that person claiming to meet the constitutional eligibility requirements need not prove they are eligible when challenged. Probably from the same leftist minds that thought up the whole no ID needed to vote.
 

foszoe

Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Rating - 100%
24   0   0
Jun 2, 2011
10,757
113
Nope, WTF can you get from the government without ID? The only thing that comes to mind is a vote.

Can you get social security without proof of who you are? You cannot even get a job without proving you are approved by the government. Everything requires ID.

Not sure where the thinking comes from from that person claiming to meet the constitutional eligibility requirements need not prove they are eligible when challenged. Probably from the same leftist minds that thought up the whole no ID needed to vote.
Do you believe social security is constitutional or covered by the constitution? I certainly don't believe the latter. Especially like voting and being president.

It's not that they are challenged, its by whom? Courts and Legislators.
 

Ingomike

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
May 26, 2018
7,281
113
North Central
I wish someone would tie their justification directly to the constitution. I made a long post about it with several points.

How were such things as constitutional meaning decided before by a group of citizens deciding or courts and legislators?


Driving is a privilege issued by the State. It doesn't seem apples to apples.

When I read it, it sound's very similar to the democratic argument that a 2nd amendment is a right but we you need to prove you are a proper person and carry your license to carry at all times.

I made an example of the 2nd saying if you are stopped by a LEO solely because you are open carrying a pistol, If he asks your name and to see your paper proof, are you required to show it?

Who decided whether you did or not? Citizens, courts, or legislators?
The constitution lays out the eligibility requirements. It also lays out the redress of grievances. Why on earth would you believe that I have the burden of proof to prove you are ineligible and if I can't you are then constitutionally eligible?

The second amendment does not specify ANY eligibility requirements, hence we have infringement by governments with age requirements. Logically if they can make a 21 age limit stick, why can't it be raised to 91?
 
Status
Top Bottom