oh my ur dumb canary. birth certificate irrelevent.

why does mccain not challenge obama's eligibility? because he is ineligible also. as per above.

you are agreeing obama admits his father is kenyan. regrettably fightthesmears interpretation is incorrect, and if they were legally challenged ~(as is happening), they will eventually be proven wrong.

just keep an eye on how the donofrio case progresses.

canary if you actually want to offer some reasoned argument feel free - at the moment you continue to produce the same old sh*t which i have already explained to you in great detail and reasoned against. you have been unable to argue your point - because

a) its wrong and you have no evidence
b) you're useless at arguing anything, just a loud mouth thickie

BIRTH CERTIFICATE INFERS CITIZENSHIP, NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP. IF ARE UNABlE TO UNDERSTAND THIS, I HAVE SEVERAL BRIDGES FOR SALE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN BUYING ONE

I'd work out the different meanings of infer, imply and possibly confer before calling others dumb IMO

lmao at these responses.

personally, i couldnt give a fk if a democrat or republican gets into office - you all seem to miss this. this is not some personal vendetta against obama - the lawsuit says he is not eligible, and neither is mccain. as a person im indifferent to them both.

just because im representing the minoirty perspective does not mean im wrong - none of you have been able to counter the constituional argument put forth - and that is because YOU CANT.

bottom line it is irrelevant in terms of policy who becomes the next president. NOTHING WILL CHANGE. the faces dont matter. what ive been tryng to prove by this exercise is that the law of the land does not matter, and the people do not live in a democracy like they think.

the only reason i am interested in this is because

a) i actually believe an injustice is occurring. if any of you actually listened to donofrio, he explains it clear enough that any of you should be able to understand. obv ur all too fkin lazy to listen to it.

b) i have money on the market. but tbh, i just want to see it through now and see if i was actually right.

so DO NOT BOTHER TO COMMENT unless you are prepared to listen to the full argument. all these counter points are quite frankly hilarious, ill-thought-through and demostrate the immense ignorance that the world is in when it comes to politics and how the world is really being run.

ribber - if you understand the constitution, when i say the birth certificate infers citizenship - i mean that it can prove citizenship but not necessarily prove natural born citizenship.

yet another poster jumping on the common bandwagon with no clue of the argument.

like saying people should kill themself over an online debate?

:^0

just adopting ur style of debate canary. care to recount some of your insults? too many to bother listing.

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

so, no need to keep updating this thread seeing as donofrio is doing the work. i will just keep checking his blog for updates and you can finally let this thread die.

i think ive made it clear where i stand on the whole issue - not much more to be said - i appreciate you all think it's ludicrous, and that's very much your choice entirely.

like i said, if/when obama is sworn in i will accept defeat.

you are illiterate because you couldn't read the rules
you are a nutter because you won't accept you've backed losers

Don,

Obama was born in Hawaii. This makes him a 'natural born citizen.'

With regard to his father's nationality, why would anyone think that a US court would hold British law above the rights given to Obama Jr under US law?

With regard to renuciation of citizenship, who has provided any evidence of this? And given that such renunciation is irrevocable, how do they explain Obama's life in the US over the last 30+ years and the fact that he holds a US passport?

To put my question another way, why would a US court see a British law as conferring dual citizenship on Obama? This assumes in the first place that the the relevant British law confers British citizenship on Obama Jnr. I've yet to see any evidence that it does.

regrettably obama has taken the time to prove it to everyone for himself!

This thread still has legs !.
Amazing. Will it still be going when Obama has been President for probably 8 years from now ?

why, if british law gave obama british citizenship, would the us NOT accept that he was born a dual citizen?

this is standard procedure. whether he is a british citizen was purely up to the british, not the usa. as standard the usa would accept that he was indeed a dual citizen, would they not, in every other normal case?

not very intelligent are you. race has nothing to do with it, and i could not care whether he becomes president or not.

im merely a bystander seeing things differently to you, and to many.

what's Don suffering from?

From the US State Department site

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

I say that the bolded part means that any other country's law does not impact Obama's status as a natural born US citizen. But I'll leave it there and see what the courts say.

within what you have highlighted it talks only of Citizenship not Natural Born Citizenship

lol

Don, of course it is a right left argument.
The far right have believed that capitalism should be completely unrestricted. So nothing, or next to nothing should be in the hands of any state. This means that in the USA, whenever the chance has allowed, and the election of Bush allowed quite a lot, anything that is the hands of the state is abolished, such as education, heath care, even whole sections of the armed forces, and turned over to private ownership and sponsorship. Hence you get the obscenity of schools being funded by Big Mac and Coke, and the private health insurance companies not covering children for the consequent diabetes and obesity. You even get the ridiculous situation that Guantanemo Bay US staff having their own health food being provided on site by Burger King - all utter doctrinaire madness.
The less right wing economics (hardly socialist admittedly) believes that capitalism is a reasonable model, provided there are sensible regulations and restrictions to offset some of the excesses. For example, a reasonable tax regime that means that a country does not continue to spend money it doesn't have, and ensures that the wealth created is not equally but more equitably divided, the support of a free health service available to all, and a decent education available to all people.
The ending of the Bush regime, that has consistently thrown out any reasonable health and safety regulations for the workers in the corporations and has conspired with military dictatorships throughout the world to throw people out of work and redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich is a great move in the right direction. of course Obama, just like Blair did, may well prove to be just more of the same old same old, but he cannot be as truly terrible as the Bush administration was proven to be.
In this regard your support for the fanatics that are trying to find another legal loop hole to fiddle the loony right back into power in the USA is rather sad. I am surprised you haven't got something more constructive to do.