Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
G.L. User ID: 629439 Canada 03/10/2009 06:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned It makes you wonder what kind of blue touch paper he has lit. [link to www.godlikeproductions.com] Public safety officials were quick to claim there was no threat. The story of the first attempt at constructing a "dirty bomb" in the United States was not carried by any mainstream press outside of Maine. "Conservatives apparently didn't want to draw attention to a radioactive, wealthy version of Timothy McVeigh coming from their own sphere, although nearly every day during Bush's reign saw "dirty bombs" hyped as the ultimate threat," summarized Wikileaks. "The left didn't want to repeat another 'dirty bomb' story, the likes of which Republicans had used to drive hundreds of billions of dollars into Republican dominated military and security contractors." In the report, an unnamed source noted, "state authorities detected radiation emissions in four small jars in the residence labeled 'uranium metal', as well as one jar labeled 'thorium.' The four jars of uranium carried the label of an identified US company." |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 339051 United States 03/10/2009 06:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned It's because they are tired of it, we are all tired of it and wish you would move on to a new, more pertinent issue, really. There will never be anything anyone can show you to convince you because "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" We want to move forward with the President that we have and wish you would come with us,if not,fine, but please,we beg you, STFU about this issue. There are real, true battles to fight, you do not have to make shit up. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned The court cases are a fact. They were brought for a reason. All he had to do was put forward the relevant documents. What he has done is to stir up a lot of unnecessary anger by not doing so. You have to ask yourself why. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned This all has to be fate because ... 1 Even if he brought forward a birth certificate his father is Kenyan. 2 Is he still Indonesian? All you had to do was find a normal American person with two American parents born on American soil. Why was it so difficult? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned It's because they are tired of it, we are all tired of it and wish you would move on to a new, more pertinent issue, really. There will never be anything anyone can show you to convince you because "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" We want to move forward with the President that we have and wish you would come with us,if not,fine, but please,we beg you, STFU about this issue. There are real, true battles to fight, you do not have to make shit up. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 339051No one interested in history could have ever ignored this. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 599652 Australia 03/10/2009 06:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558641 United States 03/10/2009 06:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Nobody is making anything up. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298The court cases are a fact. They were brought for a reason. All he had to do was put forward the relevant documents. What he has done is to stir up a lot of unnecessary anger by not doing so. You have to ask yourself why. Oh, you mean all of those court cases that were thrown out? I'm sure you believe that they were thrown out due to corruption rather than the absolute absence of supporting evidence, but whatever. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned These are real lawyers with real questions. No conspiracy. It looks like you are stuck with him anyway. [link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 558641 United States 03/10/2009 06:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Oh and to the "But all he had to do was show his birth certificate!!!" replies that I know are coming: 1) He did. 2) Even if he HAD NOT...so? If some random person on an internet "fringe" site demands that you show proof of anything, are you going to go "Oh yes sir, right away sir!"? Or are you going to ignore them like the fringe-conspiracy-theorist-desperate-to-stir-up-nonexistent-trouble that they are? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned From Donofrio's site ... That metamorphosis has important Constitutional consequences which cannot be ignored. The Constitution provides that once we have a President-elect, the eligibility of that person can be challenged by Congress. The political question doctrine kicks in at that point and the ability of any other branch to challenge for POTUS eligibility is probably nullified. And once the President-elect is sworn in and assumes office, the Constitutional separation of powers certainly controls the issue. Recall, Congress didn’t challenge Obama’s eligibility before he was sworn in, so those provisions are now moot. And once a person is sworn in as President, the Constitution then provides specific means for removing the President from office, none of which grant such power to the Judicial Branch. Now please consider the following two points: 1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. Those who are currently petitioning the Judicial branch to challenge Presidential eligibility are seeking to subvert the Constitution. They will argue Obama isn’t legally President and so therefore the Constitutional separation of powers can be ignored. Should a court ever accept that theory, you will have the recipe for civil war, and you will be doing more damage to the nation than you can even imagine. Protest all you like, but the US Government recognizes his authority. Furthermore, United States Courts all the way up to SCOTUS have refused to get involved, and this was the case before Obama was sworn in when the Judicial Branch actually did have the power to adjudicate the eligibility issue. They punted. Fact. Now that Obama has taken the office of President and is officially recognized as President, no court is going to suddenly take a leap around the separation of powers by agreeing the Constitution doesn’t apply to Obama as President. That will never happen. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 06:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Oh and to the "But all he had to do was show his birth certificate!!!" replies that I know are coming: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 5586411) He did. 2) Even if he HAD NOT...so? If some random person on an internet "fringe" site demands that you show proof of anything, are you going to go "Oh yes sir, right away sir!"? Or are you going to ignore them like the fringe-conspiracy-theorist-desperate-to-stir-up-nonexistent-trouble that they are? Relax. You are stuck with him. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 07:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned HYPOTHETICAL: Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot. There was a child registered in Canada by the name of Barack Obama at that time. If you want Conspiracy ... this is the best one yet. Gifted to read a teleprompter. |
Krysalis (OP) User ID: 570987 United States 03/10/2009 08:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned More ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298HYPOTHETICAL: Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot. There was a child registered in Canada by the name of Barack Obama at that time. If you want Conspiracy ... this is the best one yet. Gifted to read a teleprompter. Didn't someone do a search once on the name and come up with 20 or so "Barack Obama's" |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 08:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned I read somewhere about it that there was one Barack Obama born at that time. It would probably come up on Google. On looking further into Donofrio's post he seems to be suggesting that AG Holder could look into the case of Obama's eligibility. [link to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com] So, there’s probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself. Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him. But that’s not the type of conflict which requires recusal. For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him. It’s not fair to suggest AG holder won’t do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama. I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me. It’s only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing. Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office. The federal quo warranto statute provides that the “United States attorney” may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor. He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest. I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard. It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both. WHY EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC TO PRESSURE AG HOLDER AND US ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO INSTITUTE - ON THEIR OWN MOTION - AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT EX RELATOR PLAINTIFFS |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 08:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 09:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Donofrio continues ... While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all. The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney. And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice. Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it’s in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion. This is not a private issue. The controversy is raging. Nobody can deny that. AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government - as well as Obama himself - will all be better off once clear title to the office is established. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 09:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Apocalypse Troll Trollicus Apocalyptus User ID: 590726 United States 03/10/2009 09:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Relax. You are stuck with him. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298Clayton Williams said something very similar to what you just did. "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible." [link to www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us] |
Skeptic User ID: 631060 United States 03/10/2009 09:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned In general, I have found that Wikipedia is no better than any other encyclopedia. The person in charge of a particular article has his own point of view, and feels free to impose it. I have seen both extremes: an article that gives too much credit to a fringe hypothesis, and an article that refuses to mention a mainstream hypothesis that has now been declared "fringe" for political reasons. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 10:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Relax. You are stuck with him. Quoting: Apocalypse TrollClayton Williams said something very similar to what you just did. I've never heard of him until you just mentioned him. [link to en.wikipedia.org] On the whole I like Wikipedia. They have plenty on other people including Geithner. Nobody dare touch Obama because of the bots. I wonder if anything will land on AG Holder's desk. He should at least be made to look at it even if he rejects it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 10:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 10:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 565924 United States 03/10/2009 12:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless. Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 12:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 565924Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless. Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. They hand them out to anybody. Not sufficient. Which hospital? Proof please. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 12:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned Everybody has to hand over a long form certificate so why not him? Why do you defend him? The armed forces have to. Surely you wouldn't deny them proof from their Commander In Chief? Why would you treat them in such a way? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 594298 United Kingdom 03/10/2009 12:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 565924 United States 03/10/2009 12:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned He could have been born anywhere if he hasn't come up with the long form birth certificate. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 594298Wrong. The place of birth is still required regardless. Here's a refresher for you....this would be Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. They hand them out to anybody. Not sufficient. Which hospital? Proof please. "They hand them out to anybody." This is yet another baseless claim on your part. Try again. |