Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: You should in fact have to provide proof that you were born here

Posted 2 years ago on March 1, 2012, 3:19 p.m. EST by craigdangit (326)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In order to run for the presidency, just as Factsrfun pointed out. How is this a bad thing?

89 Comments

89 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Sir, we are but cavemen. Your modern, sophisticated and common sense suggestions confuse and frighten us, therefore we shall shun them.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Okay.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

oh this is why nationalism came up

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Another non issue that is brought to us by the radical extremist self ish one percenters.A clown post from Bozo's with nothing better to do than spout racial propaganda.No fact no substace all fictional bull S--t.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So people shouldn't have to provide proof that they were born here in order to run for the presidency? I don't understand what you are saying here. Please get to the point.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

The Point IS that this is a non issue.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

So if Bobby Jindal or any other neo-conservative loser of questionable citizenship wants to be the president, we shouldn't question that or make him provide proof? What the heck is racial about this?? For crying out loud, if I am referring to any candidate it would not be Obama because he has already shown his birth certificate. Read a newspaper once. What is wrong with you? What did I say that was racial?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I do not know if you need one to stay in this country,try getting a passport without one.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Not sure how that fits into the discussion...

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Not sure how the discussion fits into the occupy movement.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

It is a side discussion from an issue that FactsRFun pointed out. If you don't feel like engaging in rational debate, which is what Occupy is all about, then fine.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

A side of Crap!

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

You don't think people who apply for the presidency should have to provide proof that they are following the rules?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I think that all the presidents should follow the rules.Including on how we go to war.But tour topic is partisan motivated.Is irrelavant in that it is only based on unproven retoric.And does nothing to advance the OWS agenda.A Politcal party Talking point a distraction from REAL issues. Perhaps if your post was about how to stop two illeagle wars it might have some merit.Perhaps if it addressed the homeless.Bot No you find the most trivial issue which at this point is CRAP!

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Obvious troll is obvious

Thank you for claiming I am partisan motivated, instead of examining the points I made on their merit. It makes a lot of sense.

So, If I started railing on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that wouldn't be partisan motivated because it is something you want to hear?

For the record, I have been railing on the illegal wars we are engaged in, all four of them. They need to stop and they are unconstitutional. Are you happy now?

And how on the green earth is saying all presidential candidates should follow the rules possibly partisan motivated? If I was partisan motivated, it would be against Republicans for crying out loud, because Obama has already shown his. Can we please return to sanity now and debate things on their merit instead of falling into party stereotypes? I seriously am not sure if you are a troll or not.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Allow me to pat you on the back atta boy

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Troll. Thought so.

[-] -1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

A non issue from a patisan motivated poster that is more than likely a paid conservative mouth piece.IT's the Banks

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Of course the banks are a problem! When did I say they weren't?

You think the only problem this country faces are the banks? They are only part of the problem. You and your fellow trolls like to come on here and make us look like we are a one-issue movement. I won't stand for it and neither will anyone else here.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Yes that is the issue not your off topic non issues used to divert attention from what is important .Where are your post on the homeless,on hungar,on two illegal wars,on unemployment,on under employment,On right to work for less laws. No you elect to focus on A NON ISSUE.When you are called on it you resort to name calling.You are a paid stooge for the one percent

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Bye bye Thrasy, I'm not going to reply to your taunts and trolling any more. I have wasted enough of my time with you.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You CAN't handle the Truth.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

You are the troll. Would you say this about a post on gay marriage? LOL of course you wouldn't. You are incapable of something called "debate", where people discuss ideas and issues objectively. Apparently it s a foreign subject to you, since you are here to troll and make OWS look like a bunch of unprincipled morons. I won't stand for it and neither will any other supporter of the movement. I have posted on many topics here and this is merely an extension of an extremely good point that FactsRFun pointed out. I lost the password to my other account, and I have been on this site longer than you have been trolling. Get out of here.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Look in the trash for your password account .Than put this crap with it.I did debate you just do not loike what i said.direct and to the point this is a non issue and CRAP.

[-] 1 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

Democrats should never be subject to this trifling requirement as they are all of the highest integrity and completely devoid of moral turpitude, unlike those Republicans.

I've read my bible and it says that Republicans will put the anti-christ in the whitehouse. You hell bound carnal and blood thirsty Republicans should crack one open and give reading it a try sometime yourselves.

You'll convert.

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah! I've never understood how those Republican'ts can read the bible and miss the part about "And give people free birth control"!

Silly losers! They only pick and choose the parts they want to read!

[-] 1 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

Christians when convenient is what they is.

Don't be that way, give it all to the church of democrat and your eternal salvation is assured.

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

We have a religious obligation to follow the bible! The bible says some stuff about giving to the poor. So, we need to do what the bible says and make other people give to the poor!

But this is NOT A THEOCRACY! We only do what the bible says where it agrees with ME!

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I'm going to appoint you arch-bishop of the DNC church. You'll get to wear a shiny robe of bright colors. Money will be for nothing and chicks will be free.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I don't like money. As a principled Socialist, I see money for what it really is-- a despicable social tool for economic destruction, and nothing else. If someone gave me one hundred million dollars, I would throw it away or give it to charity.

[-] 1 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

You'll learn to love and worship it/me!

That is one of the first tenets of the Democratic National Church.

You see, if you don't have lots of it, you can't help the masses whose lack of it is the only thing preventing them getting to heaven.

Get it wherever you can.... this is important.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

If that is truly the case then you have no idea how to survive right now and really shouldn't be on a computer.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2693) 2 years ago

In order to give billions of dollars to a political campaign that really gets the president elected you should have to live in the country (or at least be headquartered here) Facts are much fun !!!!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

where does it show in the constitution that people now need to show that they were born here? where does it say, that other men other than ourselves, have to print a document (a birth certificate) that becomes all powerful, to the point that even if there was a mistake on that document, say the name was typed wrong, and that citizen is no longer born in america because of a type, the mistakes of these men will trump over the actual born citizen in america? I say, it should be obvious by the accent of the language whether a person is a natural born citizen or not. God made it apparant to all when he confounded our language years ago. I say it would even leans towards balance of freedom, when a mexican masters the english tongue so much so that he sounds like us hes as good as born here in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

It says so where it says the president needs to be a "Natural born citizen". Do you think we should assume they are unless it can be proven they are not? The burden of proof is on the person trying to become the president. I would tend to agree, heck, if people want to vote in an immigrant so what. But it is the law, so proof needs to be provided.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

its also the law that the government cannot own land for it belongs to the people as their inheritance to be handed down to their children as stated in the original treaty when the colonies obtained the unoccupied territories. Yet no one ever owns any land unless they pay the government taxes on their homes and their land land forever and ever.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Okay. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[-] 3 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

You sound like your not a good Democrat. Repent and change your ways or you shall burn in the everlasting fire of Republican hell!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

That's a fun song. Not sure how it relates to the thread.

[-] 0 points by Columnweddingdresses (0) from 北伯根, NJ 2 years ago

论坛: Via Dolorosa Traci Brimhall We have been telling the story wrong all along, how a king took Philomela's tongue after he had taken her body, and how the gods turned her into a nightingale(夜莺) so she could tell the night of her grief. Even now the streets wait for her lamentation(悲叹) —strays minister to bones abandoned on a stoop, a man sleeps on the ghosts of yesterday's heat, pigeons rest on top of the church and will not stir until they hear music below them. Inside, a woman warms up the organ and sings Via Dolorosa about a Messiah who wanted to save everyone from the wages of pleasure. But how can I keep a man's fingers from my mouth? How can I resist bare trees dervishing(苦行僧) on the sidewalk? A woman outside the train station asks, Is there a city underneath this city? I say, Let me tell you a story, and tell her that after Longfellow put out the fire in his wife's dress, after he buried her, after his burns turned to soft pink skin, he translated the Inferno(阴间,地域) . There is a place deep in the earth for the ravished and ruined where everyone is transformed by suffering. And the truth is that Philomela originally became a sparrow stuttering in the laurels(月桂树) , but the story changed with the telling. Someone wanted to give her mercy, a song. Now the truth is a red stain on her breast. Now truth is the pulse where her tongue used to be.


|[url="http://www.dressale.com/bridesmaid-dresses-classic-bridesmaid-dresses-c- 2_4_40.html"]Classic Bridesmaid Dresses[/url]|[url="http://www.dressale.com/wedding-dresses-maternity-wedding-dresses-c-2_3_30.html"]Maternity Wedding Dresses[/url]|[url="http://www.dressale.com/junior-bridesmaid-dresses-black-junior-bridesmaid-dresses-c-2_9_44.html"]Black Junior Bridesmaid Dresses[/url]|[url="http://www.dressale.com/wedding-dresses-sheathcolumn-wedding-dresses-c-2_3_23.html"]Sheath Wedding Dresses[/url]

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Which party are you talking about, Democrats or Republicans? It matters!

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

No, it does not.

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

Correct, and your point here,

"I think the moonbats on the right would have jumped at something like this for any Democrat president, black or white."

demonstrates the fact. It's about usurpations of the constitution and nothing else.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

What specifically are you saying is a usurpation of the constitution?

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

Article. II., Section. 1. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

u·sur·pa·tion (ysr-pshn, -zr-) n. 1. The act of usurping, especially the wrongful seizure of royal sovereignty. 2. A wrongful seizure or exercise of authority or privilege belonging to another; an encroachment:

The office of president has a constitutional requirement therefore the candidate must produce as much documentation exists and begin as a civil servant with NO intent of evasion.

This is a very organized and long term usurpation. The nwo idea is to accumulate as many blatent usurpations as possible. Defense of them by infiltration in society is to be expected. epa1nter is a typical "cognitive infiltrator" operating under nwo agenda.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Exactly. The burden of proof is on the person applying for the job to provide, anything else would essentially be the same as assuming a person applying for a driver's license has a good record because they aren't saying they don't.

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

The fact oba is not natural born should be discovered and exposed. Doing so is NOT more important than restoring constitutional government. The PTB manipulating the scene would rather everyone talk about the obo potus scandal than see citizens focusing on restoration of the constitutional federal government.

Logically obas birth issue is ONLY another sensational scandal that happens to be a usurpation of the constitution. Personally I am far more upset about deprivation in due process at the Twin Towers massacre and the resulting wars from that sedition and terrorism serving TREASON derived from domestic espionage, killing perhaps hundreds of thousands and thousands of our soldiers.

Accordingly I seek real strategy for an Article V, this seems to be the only real development.

http://articlevconvention.org/

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Well, I need to know if you are talking about Obama or Romney before I can decide if this is a good law or not!.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I hope for the sake of humanity that you are joking.

[-] 2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Give it up. The Left are the epitome of double standards.

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

Preach the gospel to these heathens. I am showing a shiny german sports car in your future. It will of course, be donkey blue.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

And who are you referring to that hasn't done so?

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney for this election, if he wins the nomination and wishes to appear on the ballot in the fall, and Barack Obama as well as John Mccain and all other candidates should have to have done so before being eligible for the 2008 election.

[-] 2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 2 years ago

Makes ya wonder why Massachewshit didn't ask to see his papers, or that very honorable and straight laced state of Illinois didn't request Obama's before making him a Senator.

I smell a republican conspiracy.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, so is not technically a natural-born American citizen, except by act of Congress.

Barack Obama did present a birth certificate. As for his college transcripts, that's up to him. It's certainly not a requirement for the Presidency, any more than an education is required to post on a forum.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

True, true. I think a judge ruled that the PCZ was US soil and qualified McCain as a NBC. Obama released his certificate only when asked for it, several years after being sworn in. That should be an official part of qualifying to be on the ballot, providing a magistrate with paper documentation that proves you meet the requirements.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Problem is these idiot birthers. Even after Obama presented his birth certificate, they simply claimed it was a forgery.

So if people don't want ot believe something about ANY candidate, they simply won't.

The issue has never been one of ID, but of racism.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

But since being a natural born citizen is a requirement, there should be some formal, automatic verification in place with a magistrate before you can be eligible to appear on a US ballot, no matter who you are.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

True, but that was never the issue, was it?

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

It is for me. I think all politicians should have to prove this stuff.

[-] 2 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

Not democrats you damned republican thug.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I have no problem with politicians having to prove this stuff going forward, but the unprecedented insanity around Obama's birth certificate was about one issue and one issue only: Racism.

[-] 1 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

Is that why a soldier was denied his constitutional rights at court martial?

http://soldiersforjusticeandpeace.com/2010/09/army-col-denise-r-lind-denied-ltc-terry-lakin-constitutional-rights/

Or is that why Obama failed to appear on civil subpoena?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/judge-says-obama-can-be-on-georgia-ballot/

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nope. You are a conspiracy nut job. The first link is about the office of the President refusing to give evidence in a court martial. That's hardly unusual.

The second link determined that, since Obama was born in the USA, he is a natural born citizen. The argument there was about whether or not being born on US soil qualifies, (as has been established by law) not whether he was born here or not.

The "controversy" itself started when he was a candidate for the 2008 elections. It was transparently racist, and that has not changed. Indeed, since the birth certificate has indeed been made available publicly, it is now even MORE obvious that this is an exclusively racist motivated issue. Although there are some Area 51, Sasquach tin foil hat wearing morons who have since latched on. Which camp are you in? Racist or mentally disturbed? (You can claim both if you want.)

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

Your uses of "cognitive distortions" to attempt justification of the deprival of right of a soldier shows that you have an agenda against the constitution because that what defines what the president must be, and you deny it.

Ony accountable people can hold important offices. The president must be the most accountable.

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

  1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.

  2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.

  3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.

  4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.

  5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.

  6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.

  7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.

  8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.

  9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.

  10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

  11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.

  12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.

You've used quite a few of those cognitive distortions trying to foul peoples thinking.

The law is the law.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yup, the law is the law (and has been followed) , and racism is racism, and nut jobs are nut jobs.

No cognitive distortions involved. Nor do I need to foul your thinking: you done a pretty good job of that all by yourself.

[-] 2 points by TruthRightsFreedom (259) 2 years ago

10 Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Since it is clearly you who don't understand the errors of your legal interpretation in the very links you supplied, despite their having been pointed out to you, I would the willful stupidity is at your end.

Sometimes labels are accurate. Identifying you as either a fucking racist scumbag or a tin foil wearing conspiracy nut job would be one of those times.

Here's another that fits perfectly: troll.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JesusDemocrat (193) 2 years ago

I've made a deal with the republican devil and reserved a very special place in hell for you. You cannot be saved and will spend eternity with the worst dregs of sodomites.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Hey........somebody get the cross already.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

I think I'll have to disagree with you there, though I guess it is pointless to argue either way. I think the moonbats on the right would have jumped at something like this for any Democrat president, black or white. I'm sure some of it is racism.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Racism.....really now. Every president in the past has released his college transcripts/birth certificate etc.. If asked. Your object of veneration and outright worship did not. He, eventually, released a birth certificate. Why did he hesitate? And he still hasn't released his college transcripts . Hell, even that asshole Bush did that. Remember when everyone laughed at his mediocre grades? But still you GOD hasn't done even that. Why?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I really doubt that you can prove that every president released his college transcript and birth certificate. Give me a link, please.

Actually I recall that Obama released what most of us have, which is the hospital birth certificate. I would have thought it was good, had my footprint on it and everything.

That is all I had for many years, then found out about the state-issued one.

If you would have asked me for a state issued one, I would have hesitated, believing the you were just harassing me for some unknown reason.

That "asshole Bush" did a lot of foot dragging about his service record, as I recall. Maybe the transcript was less damaging evidence in his case?

Forgive me, but you sound like an almost birther, who finally had to give up hope? Maybe Obama hesitated because he knew it was going to drive a lot of people who hate him even crazier? Do you still hope there is something in those transcripts that will disqualify him as President?

Why, if you just listen to him you can tell he isn't smart enough to have actually gone to college and passed any courses. I'll bet he couldn't even give a speech without a teleprompter.

Remember "every president in the past........." you said.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yeah, right, sure. There's something suspicious here. And I've got a bridge to sell you.

[-] 2 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yes, thank you. When politicians hide something, there is rarely a reason for it.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, and when there is one form of hysteria after another over the first black president, there is a reason for that, too.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 2 years ago

Do you really think the Repubs liked Clinton that much better? They are looking for any reason to get him out of office.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Look, the tactic here was Obama's birthplace. The accusation was that he was born in Africa, simply because of his name and skin color. Yes, the republitards do anything and everything to assassinate character; no trick is too dirty. But this particular one is all about race. It is the penultimate Southern Strategy, and part of a much broader race-based attack. I don't get the sense you are naive, but am left to wonder why you don't see this.

[-] -1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Nope. No answer here..... Surprise....

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Troll.

Racist.

[-] -2 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Yep. The ultimate answer of Marxist filth: name calling. Forget about any logic or civilized discussion. Your time is coming....Reds...

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

"Marxist filth: name calling"

hahahahaha forums are hilarious tonight

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

You certainly aren't calling names. Oh, no, you're typing them. I would say write, but that would indicate something other than vitriol.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Fascist.

Racist.

Fuck your sister lately? (Everyone else has.)

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you talking about Ms Fluke? the self proclaimed twat of Georgetown?

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Nope, I'm talking about people like you. Funny how your daughter is also your sister.

[-] 1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

enough projection about your family of inbred idiots.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Tell me, when your granddaughter calls or you does she say "Daddy" since you are that, too? Must be nice that your first daughter is so close in age to her child, your other daughter. But how does she have the time to take care of her, what with all the schoolwork and homework from middle school?