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

[No Weatherman]

No, your post didn't get cut off, at least not in my browser, but it's
possible that my post got cut off in yours. I wrote, "I don't know the
answer to these questions and I'm not ashamed in the least to admit
it."

I apologize for not being clearer and more direct in my loud assertion
but that's my answer.

Now, since I am clearly ignorant as to the exact reason why the
fathers inserted this requirement in the Constitution and I am
ignorant as to how Obama could prove his NBC status in a court of law,
I'm really curious for your opinion. And if you know the hard and fast
answers to these questions and can support it, I'd love to hear that
as well.


On 10/8/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> NW --
>
>  My post must have gotten cut off, because you didn't answer this part:
>
>
>  Loud assertions aren't an argument. How does Obama's citizenship
>  status differ from our Presidents' up to Andrew Jackson?
>
>
> Could you do that, please?
>
>  -- ACS
>
>
>  On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > 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
>  >>
>  >
>
> > =======================================================
>
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>  >               http://www.fsr.net
>  >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>  > =======================================================
>  >
>