What's new

Is Obama a Natural Born US Citizen?

Is Obama A Natural Born US Citizen?

  • No, I'm a crazy *** birther

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Yes, I'm a blind follower

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Maybe, but he's hiding something.

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Who gives a rat's ***

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Whatever Kicky says

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .

Scat

Well-Known Member
This could get interesting...

41LGsVo1iJL._SS500_.jpg


To be released May 17th.
 
Stupid nutjob theory. Even his short form says he was born in Honolulu. By definition that makes him a natural born citizen, plus the fact his mother was a US citizen.
 
What about an option to say that we think it may be in doubt, but it doesn't change anything? These options are spun too hard to make a choice really. Your only option is "Of Course Obama Is Awesome" or "I am a psycho nut-case, hide your children". There is also no options regarding cheese. I proclaim this a failpoll.
 
The poll choices suck, but seriously it's a book from a guy who has a history of writing political attack books and I doubt a single person will have their mind changed. Those who are still clinging to the idea that he's not a citizen just really really want that to be true for some reason.
 
Who cares?

Is there a good reason, at this point in our country's history, that our president must be born here? IMO, this requirement served a purpose early on, but has become obsolete.
 
Who cares?

Is there a good reason, at this point in our country's history, that our president must be born here? IMO, this requirement served a purpose early on, but has become obsolete.

Don't you know that our founding fathers were infallible Gods whose every thought is just as relevant today as it was 200+ years ago?
 
This could get interesting...

By interesting do you mean completely devoid of any sort of intelligence or common sense? Marcus, you didn't have much credibility on this board to begin with, but now, it's completely gone. You're a fool with the brain the size of a peanut.
 
I would like to make the case that George W was likewise ineligible to be president, as the minimum required age is 35, and he managed to get by on some pretty iffy documents from the Dominican Republic left over from his pitching stint with Tom's River.
 
Who cares?

Is there a good reason, at this point in our country's history, that our president must be born here? IMO, this requirement served a purpose early on, but has become obsolete.

To return to seriousness for just a second, I actually agree with the requirement that our president be a natural born citizen. I think there is something to be said for someone running the country who actually was born here and likely was raised here and therefore understands the people, not just the politics. I would be suspect of someone who had an american birth certificate who then lived for 30 years in another country as well. I want to know that my president understands what makes americans tick. I have lived in another country and I can tell you that no matter what time you spend there, if it is not your birthplace and the place you have lived most of your life you cannot have the same connection to and understanding of the people and culture as a natural born citizen.

I guess you could make a case for a naturalized citizen who lived in america for 99% of their lifetime. That might be ok. But I still want to see that our president is born in america. I do not think that is so irrational.

Just my $0.02. Let the flame-fest continue.
 
But I still want to see that our president is born in america. I do not think that is so irrational.

Just my $0.02. Let the flame-fest continue.

What about citizens born overseas on military bases?

What about diplomatic staff children that spend large portions of their formative years in foreign countries but live at US embassies?

What about persons born in US territories or protectorates, like the U.S. Virgin Islands?

What about the Barry Goldwater scenario (i.e. born in Arizona before Arizona was a state)? A future version of that scenario could play out, for example, with someone like current Senator Lisa Murkowski (born in 1957 in Alaska) or if future states are admitted down the line.

Also: Disturbingly few people have chosen the obvious choice, which is "whatever kicky says." I'm disappointed.
 
To return to seriousness for just a second, I actually agree with the requirement that our president be a natural born citizen. I think there is something to be said for someone running the country who actually was born here and likely was raised here and therefore understands the people, not just the politics. I would be suspect of someone who had an american birth certificate who then lived for 30 years in another country as well. I want to know that my president understands what makes americans tick. I have lived in another country and I can tell you that no matter what time you spend there, if it is not your birthplace and the place you have lived most of your life you cannot have the same connection to and understanding of the people and culture as a natural born citizen.

I guess you could make a case for a naturalized citizen who lived in america for 99% of their lifetime. That might be ok. But I still want to see that our president is born in america. I do not think that is so irrational.

Just my $0.02. Let the flame-fest continue.

While that might be an important requirement for you, wouldn't it be just as effective to let the voters take all that into account and vote for the person they thought was best for the job? The rule essentially aims to protect voters from themselves.
 
Please explain this one. Can you be a US citizen if you were born on a military base located in Germany? If this is true, I had no idea.

Under certain circumstances, yes. At least one parent has to be a US citizen and meet a number of other requirements (i.e. lived in the United States for a certain number of years). The residency rules are somewhat relaxed for military personnel who are stationed overseas.
 
While that might be an important requirement for you, wouldn't it be just as effective to let the voters take all that into account and vote for the person they thought was best for the job? The rule essentially aims to protect voters from themselves.

There's a corresponding requirement that Presidents must be a resident of the US for at least 14 years. I would think that would be enough time to figure out "what makes Americans tick." (whatever that means)
 
Back
Top