[Vision2020] Natural Born Citizen: Evasion You Can Believe In

[No Weatherman]

ACS:

I'm pretty familiar with basic lawyering, thank you. That's why I
wrote "good lawyering, bad politics." I'm also familiar with Berg's
nutjob 9-11 vandal theory (they were vandals, correct?) And anyone can
go back and trace the NBC status of our presidents, as you have
apparently done to your credit. That's why I asked you to please "tell
us why you believe the fathers inserted the NBC prerequisite and why
you believe Obama won't answer the question."

You ignored my first inquiry while answering my second. So let me
enlarge upon it. Why did the fathers insert this requirement and how
do you believe Barack Obama can prove he qualifies?

I don't know the answer to these questions and I'm not ashamed in the
least to admit it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing — but
there's lots wrong with not knowing and pretending otherwise.


On 10/8/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 5:41 AM, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > ACS,
>  >
>  > Your founding fathers argument is obvious but it doesn't answer the
>  > point and your jus sanguinus argument adds no light either.
>
>
> Loud assertions aren't an argument. How does Obama's citizenship
>  status differ from our Presidents' up to Andrew Jackson?
>
>
>  > And rather than jingle with you on the dance floor all day long,
>  > please answer the question and tell us why you believe the fathers
>  > inserted the NBC prerequisite and why you believe Obama won't answer
>  > the question.
>
>
> Obama won't submit to discovery from a nutjob (who, incidentally, is
>  also trying to sue the Bush family under RICO for causing 9/11) if he
>  can win on summary judgment. Basic lawyering.
>
>  -- ACS
>