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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23180)	12/7/2009 10:51:51 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "I don't care who the authority was that made that rule," Right. I get it. (That's what I thought, you don't particularly care what the various laws and official regulations say, you simply have your OWN OPINION about the way it should be.)

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (23180)	12/7/2009 11:21:27 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Hope this reply is clearer (then my last one). I don't see where there is any reason for 'high temperatures' or misunderstandings at all.... You say that "that is not a proper 'birth certificate'". (Fine! That's your opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinions!) But, ALL FIFTY STATES (because they ALL recognize it as official and valid, without exception) clearly disagree. As does the federal government itself, which also has no problems with the form (holding it to be fully compliant with all relevant regulations and laws). And the Federal Courts. So... that's the basis for the discussion we've been having. Though I see no disagreement about these facts on either side: 1) You say that your opinion is that this is not 'proper'. 2) But no one disputes that (currently) it is held to be legal and valid everywhere in the land.