Hawaii Supreme Court asked to issue emergency writ

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Dymphna

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.

We agree up to this point.

Name change on a school admission form is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. It supports the concept that he was probably adopted. It adds to the fact that he would have HAD to have been adopted to attend the school in the first place. 42 year old adoption papers from another country are not the easiest things to come by at all, and Obama could simply say "yes I was" as it is reported his wife has said or "no I wasn't". Instead he keeps quiet and tries to utilize the rules to make the question go away instead of answer it.

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.

This is irrelevant. It goes towards the need for him to have been adopted to go into the school in the first place. If his answer is that his mother lied to get him into the school, just let him say that. THAT would be a reasonable, believable answer.

[Bavarian]

This may be being dragged out so that the last minute substitution on HRC for BHO will cause her victory. Biden can be replaced later. Actually, the real vote for President and Vice-President are cast much later by Electors meeting in each state. The Founder''s did not want the danger of the people voting directly as every time that was tried, the Republic collapsed. Once people find out that they can vote themselves money from others, they take it.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bavarian

Once people find out that they can vote themselves money from others, they take it.

Geee, good thing that doesn't happen here

[Dymphna]

Originally Posted by This_person

We agree up to this point.It's not irrelevant. It supports the concept that he was probably adopted. It adds to the fact that he would have HAD to have been adopted to attend the school in the first place. 42 year old adoption papers from another country are not the easiest things to come by at all, and Obama could simply say "yes I was" as it is reported his wife has said or "no I wasn't". Instead he keeps quiet and tries to utilize the rules to make the question go away instead of answer it.This is irrelevant. It goes towards the need for him to have been adopted to go into the school in the first place. If his answer is that his mother lied to get him into the school, just let him say that. THAT would be a reasonable, believable answer.

You are assuming that a school system in a foreign country requires proof of identity and citizenship, instead of just taking the word of a leading citizen when he says, "this is my son." I know many a stepfather who would make such a claim, even while taking "his son" every other weekend to visit another man who can legitimately make the same claim. And again, we are talking about 40 years ago, when it was common for a stepchild to assume his stepfather's name, Bill Clinton comes to mind for example. His bio-dad died when he was young and he assumed his step-father's name. I don't know if there was a formal adoption there, but probably not because it wouldn't have been necessary. It was quite common 30 or 40 years ago just to take on the "family" name especially when there was no other father around to dispute it. It was perfectly legal back in the day to use a stepfather's name in those circumstances without going to court to formally change it. Requiring the courts to get involved in these cases was considered ridiculous and it's only been in the last 25 years or so that it's been required to legally change a name.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Dymphna

You are assuming that a school system in a foreign country requires proof of identity and citizenship, instead of just taking the word of a leading citizen when he says, "this is my son."

I'm making no such assumption.

I'm saying that this is the argument, and it has validity. So does yours. However, the argument has been made in court the former way, not your way. The person that has been asked to provide answers to this questions (legally) the process of asking the question instead of answering the question.

So, instead of clearing this up and making a fool of anyone who would ask such a question, and thus ending the entire thing as a huge victory for himself, Sen. Obama is taking the "it depends on the definition of 'is'" defense.

This makes the answer suspect instead of making the questioner a joke.

[Bavarian]

If BHO has problems getting his birth certificate that are legitimate, he should have started even before he announced his candacy to get one. His not producing it is, by itself, suspicious.
And when McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, it was still U.S. territory, this was before Jimmy Carter gave it away.

[Midnightrider]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm making no such assumption.

I'm saying that this is the argument, and it has validity. So does yours. However, the argument has been made in court the former way, not your way. The person that has been asked to provide answers to this questions (legally) the process of asking the question instead of answering the question.

So, instead of clearing this up and making a fool of anyone who would ask such a question, and thus ending the entire thing as a huge victory for himself, Sen. Obama is taking the "it depends on the definition of 'is'" defense.

This makes the answer suspect instead of making the questioner a joke.

he is absolutely not doing that. His lawyers have motioned to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has no merrit, the person bringing it has no standing, and the court has no jurisdiction on the matter. No where does his team question the meaning of any words, only the LEGALITY of the law suit.

[Bann (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.

The mainstream media actually reported it when there was NO choice left but to report it. They deliberately withhold negative information about Democrats. Edwards WAS a candidate for President when there were rumors swirling around him. If there were rumors about John McCain or Sarah Palin having an affair - that would be reported as news.

Oh, wait. It already has been. See? Media bias. In the tank for the wolf in sheep's clothing.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bann

The mainstream media actually reported it when there was NO choice left but to report it. They deliberately withhold negative information about Democrats. Edwards WAS a candidate for President when there were rumors swirling around him. If there were rumors about John McCain or Sarah Palin having an affair - that would be reported as news.

Oh, wait. It already has been. See? Media bias. In the tank for the wolf in sheep's clothing.

If Edwards had dropped (scandeled?) out before the One had the nomination, Hillary might have gotten his votes

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Midnightrider

he is absolutely not doing that. His lawyers have motioned to dismiss the case on the grounds that it has no merrit, the person bringing it has no standing, and the court has no jurisdiction on the matter. No where does his team question the meaning of any words, only the LEGALITY of the law suit.

The phrase was in quotes because I didn't mean it literally, but figuratively. He's pulling a Bill Clinton and trying to utilize technicalities within the law instead of directly answering the questions regarding him. Personally, I find when people question the question or the questioner instead of answering the questions, they're usually in the wrong. Not always, but usually.

Obama's response is that a citizen doesn't have the right to question whether he meets the Constitutional qualifications for president. He doesn't much like being questioned by mere citizens, apparently.