Hawaii Supreme Court asked to issue emergency writ

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by This_person

No, he lets his surrogates poo-poo that there's no merit to it, and that keeps the majority of the media from reporting on it. If there were daily updates on the court case, he would answer whatever he needs to answer.

As it is now, this is ignored as much as most of Biden's gaffes, or anything else that tends to paint Obama in any kind of a negative light. We now know more about Joe the Plumber than we ever will about Obama, because his question (and Obama's horrific answer) made Obama look bad - ATTACK THE MESSENGER!!! My hope is that the judge will actually do his job and expedite this case before the election, to minimize the potential costs to the country should Obama win the popular vote election.

the hole in your argument is that it is not being reported by any respeced media, not even places such as FNN who are openly biased against Obama. WHy wouldn't they be all over this? Orielly didn't mention any of it, neither has hannity as far as i have seen, and Worldnet has discredited the claims of a forgery. That tells me they all believe there is nothing to the story.They dont want to report on it because if they did they would have to either lie or report that this is all BS.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

the hole in your argument is that it is not being reported by any respeced media, not even places such as FNN who are openly biased against Obama. WHy wouldn't they be all over this? Orielly didn't mention any of it, neither has hannity as far as i have seen, and Worldnet has discredited the claims of a forgery. That tells me they all believe there is nothing to the story.They dont want to report on it because if they did they would have to either lie or report that this is all BS.

Not at all.

First off, with almost equal viewers who are Republican and Democrat (the only major cable news network that can claim anything close to that), Fox News is not "openly biased against Obama". HANNITY is, but Fox News is not.

I think it's because most people focus on the potential forgery, which will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction. If the only part of this were the potential of forgery of a birth certificate, then there would be nothing to it. The Indonesian factor is hard to explain with no clear cut answer, thus it only muddies up the water and doesn't really help or hurt anyone yet, because no one really knows well enough. Talking about it makes one look like a tin-foil hat wearer, so the major networks won't touch it, yet. They're going after it with all the strength they go after all of Obama negative stories - they yawn, look at their watch, and grab a beer.

To the people that believe he's unqualified (on many levels), the birth certificate end of things will never be fully answered. And, to the people that believe he can turn water to wine, it's been answered fully. The truth, as is usually true, is most likely somewhere in between. As for the rest of it, it's too complicated to put on the footer of a news program, so we won't hear of it unless there's an actual decision by this judge, or a timeline given Obama to actually answer the questions, or something of that sort.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by This_person

Not at all.

First off, with almost equal viewers who are Republican and Democrat (the only major cable news network that can claim anything close to that), Fox News is not "openly biased against Obama". HANNITY is, but Fox News is not.

I think it's because most people focus on the potential forgery, which will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction. If the only part of this were the potential of forgery of a birth certificate, then there would be nothing to it. The Indonesian factor is hard to explain with no clear cut answer, thus it only muddies up the water and doesn't really help or hurt anyone yet, because no one really knows well enough. Talking about it makes one look like a tin-foil hat wearer, so the major networks won't touch it, yet. They're going after it with all the strength they go after all of Obama negative stories - they yawn, look at their watch, and grab a beer.

To the people that believe he's unqualified (on many levels), the birth certificate end of things will never be fully answered. And, to the people that believe he can turn water to wine, it's been answered fully. The truth, as is usually true, is most likely somewhere in between. As for the rest of it, it's too complicated to put on the footer of a news program, so we won't hear of it unless there's an actual decision by this judge, or a timeline given Obama to actually answer the questions, or something of that sort.

that still doens't explain why hannity hasn't covered it. He already looks like a tinfoil hat wearing idiot to those to the center and left, and he wouldn't loose any respect from the right if he reported it and was later found to be wrong.

I am willing to bet this has all been gone over and the news networks have determined there is nothing to it. Newsmen generally are all about breaking a story. if this one had any legs, it would have been reported.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

that still doens't explain why hannity hasn't covered it. He already looks like a tinfoil hat wearing idiot to those to the center and left, and he wouldn't loose any respect from the right if he reported it and was later found to be wrong.

I am willing to bet this has all been gone over and the news networks have determined there is nothing to it. Newsmen generally are all about breaking a story. if this one had any legs, it would have been reported.

Based upon John Edwards, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Dymphna]

Originally Posted by This_person

At the time, if he was 5 years old when he moved there, he would have automatically been considered an Indonesian citizen should his step-father have adopted him (as demonstrated by the name change to his step-father's surname on his admission records). If this is the case, no documentation would have been necessary for the citizenship change - it was automatic because of age.

Again, this is why it's so complicated - there are many questions about what actually happened (just like with his birth) that are not being answered. There may be posts of scanned pictures of stuff, but there are no answers. Instead of walking into court where the legal question has been raised and simply responding - putting to rest the theories and speculation and doubt and wonder, Obama is doing every legal machination he can to make the questions go away. While I think there is more than likely nothing to all of this, his response makes me question that assumption more than the evidence against him does.

If he was adopted, there would be adoption papers that those who claim it happened should have the burden of finding. If he wasn't adopted, there are no papers, so he can't produce proof that it didn't happen. Name change on a school admission form is irrelevant. Children of mothers who remarry often assume the name of their step-fathers, without any legal right to do so....it doesn't happen in this country anymore, but it did 40 years ago and it probably still happens in other countries.

I have an aunt and uncle who are the children of my grandmother's first husband. They took their stepfather's name when grandma remarried, but there was never any formal adoption. My grandfather, (who in retrospect was a mean SOB) cut them out of his will in favor of his "real" children. Attempts to contest the will failed because there was never any formal adoption and he had no obligation to them.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

It's a safe bet that if Obama was 10 points behind in the polls we wouldn't see all this stink about his birth certificate. Obama has a passport. I'm sure his birth credentials have been srutinized at some point, at least by the State Dept.

Why do you assume that?
Do you really think he was forced to standing in line with his shoes off to make his recent world tour?

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by This_person

Based upon John Edwards, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

there is a little difference between marital infidelity and a fraudulent candidate for president, and edwards' promiscuity was hinted at by various sources for quite some time, and widely reported when there was actual proof.

[Dymphna]

Originally Posted by This_person

Yes, it would be, if Indonesia allowed for dual citizenship at that time.

They did not. Thus, the question is whether this was a tacit renouncement of his American citizenship. If so, even if he came back and was naturalized (which I strongly suspect he did not), he would no longer be a "natural born citizen" because he would have renounced that (via his mother's decision).

It's complicated and I believe he probably is a citizen. However, I think his reaction to the question is strongly suspect, and makes me wonder. If he simply answered the questions instead of taking every possible angle to get out of answering the questions, I would stick with my assumption that he's a citizen.

Indonesia may not have allowed dual citizenship, but the US doesn't recognize "tacit" renouncement of citizenship, it MUST be deliberate through the process of becoming a naturalized citizen of another country or by taking up arms against the US in another country's military.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

there is a little difference between marital infidelity and a fraudulent candidate for president, and edwards' promiscuity was hinted at by various sources for quite some time, and widely reported when there was actual proof.

Please explain the difference in NOT COVERING STORIES that might have a detrimental effect on the anointed on becoming POTUS.

i.e. How is not covering Edwards' infidelity until AFTER he dropped out of the race different than not covering the various lawsuits about Obama's birth certificate?

TIA

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by aps45819

Please explain the difference in NOT COVERING STORIES that might have a detrimental effect on the anointed on becoming POTUS.

i.e. How is not covering Edwards' infidelity until AFTER he dropped out of the race different than not covering the various lawsuits about Obama's birth certificate?

TIA

it has long be accepted that infidelity is ovrlooked by the media because it is seen to be an issue only for the two in the marrige, like most americans. The media has been known to have some decency, not always but sometimes.

as for a major story that absolutely could affect the race for president, i would think any reporter, no matter how liberal, would love to be the person who breaks that one. You would be on every major network and would be instantly famous. Just look at the attention Joe the Plumber got.