Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (30331)	12/11/2008 4:53:18 PM
From: Jim S	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I guess I must be pretty naive about presidential politics. It sure seems to me that the major political parties would have some means of vetting candidates, even before the party conventions. In fact, it seems that there should be some agency that would at least check that any candidate who applies to run for a national office is, in fact, eligible for the position. It would seem that it should also include at least the same sort of information required for a security clearance. But, just the fact that the question of Obama's citizenship has come up, indicates that it probably takes less personal history to run for President than it would take to buy a gun at a gun store or even to get a driver's license in some states. What I really don't understand is the refusal to produce the legal Birth Certificate. What could there possibly be on a public document of that sort that would necessitate the expendature of tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of dollars to keep it hidden?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (30331)	12/11/2008 5:29:41 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "Tomorrow it requires four votes to cause the whole court to hear the case... four leftwingers...." So... TOMORROW decides the case, right? (As far as it's ultimate legal disposition.) With the LAST CASE --- the Justices were all UNANIMOUS in rejecting it... voting not to take it up for the Court's term. With no written dissents. (So... are you saying that ALL NINE of 'em are 'ultra liberals' and that's why they rejected the previous case? Or... will you say that if they all unanimously dismiss Berg's case tomorrow?) Re: "Obama's ability to call on a mob of 4 million may intimidate the SCOTUS." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right! ('Cause he's right on the verge of calling for a tourch-bearing mob of peasants to storm the Supreme Court's castle and burn 'em out of there, right? Sheesh... where do you GET this stuff?)