It is not racist to question Obama's citizenship

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."

worlock77


But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.

It doesn't matter if he was an influence on them or not, his book is not the law of the United States. You're a f*cking moron for even dreaming that this is a remotely valid argument.

Harsh man harsh.....:(
#-48 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important.

Laihendi

I just don't understand how there's any harm done if someone is born in Italy and then legally immigrates to the United States as an infant. All they'd know their entire lives is being an American.

If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.

You're an expert on fallacies. You should know which one you just committed.
#-47 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its not racist. Its just stupid. Even the requirement is stupid.

XaosII

No the requirement is not stupid. The whole point is to keep the government from being taken over by foreigners with no true loyalty to the country and the principles it was founded on. That is very important. Obama has made it clear that he does not respect those principles.

Obama does not respect personal responsibility. Obama does not respect freedom of speech. Obama does not respect habeas corpus - the concept of being innocent until proven guilty.

No, the requirement is very stupid. You have to be 35 years old (which is also stupid as its an arbitrarily defined age) and you must have lived in the US for 14 years.

If you were born in the US and lived the next 21 years in an anti-US country, then moved to the US, lived there until 35 - you can run for president.

If you were born in Canada, moved to the US in under 24 hours, lived there for 35 years - you can't run for president.

Your opinion of what obama respects or doesn't has little bearing on your misconception of his "foreign" status.

I agree that the age limit is questionable, but saying that there are loopholes for anti-Americans to be eligible for president does not mean that we should just make it even easier for them to be elected. Also anyone who lives in an anti-US country is moving there to get away. If someone moves here to become a politician, then he is coming here with the specific purpose of gaining political power in it. That is not the type of person who should be president.
#-46 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

It's racist and incredibly dumb.

#-45 Posted by XaosII (16534 posts) -

If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.Laihendi

*Correction* If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can run to become president

And this is bad because? Let our presidential voting process determine who should and shouldn't be president. If we find a foreign born nominee that presents better ideas, what makes him unfit to be a president? The artificial barriers imposed in the constitution?

#-44 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politician
#-43 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="JML897"]

I just don't understand how there's any harm done if someone is born in Italy and then legally immigrates to the United States as an infant. All they'd know their entire lives is being an American.

DroidPhysX

If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.

You're an expert on fallacies. You should know which one you just committed.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy. That's just what people say to justify their lack of principles. You either strictly maintain a principle or you compromise it, and when you compromise a principle then anything can happen.

#-42 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -
Lai has an unhealthy obsession with Obama.DroidPhysX
#-41 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
Aljosa23
Parents from Mars.
#-40 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

 Slippery slope is not a fallacy.

Laihendi

Please play the game properly. 

#-39 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
can we revisit the eternal quote that went something like 'my beliefs are rational and anyone who contradicts them is irrational'
#-38 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="NEWMAHAY"]

Our founding fathers and their parents were UK citizens...

 

Obama had parent that had UK citizenship and was born in the legal boundry of the United States. If this was a problem, then the founding fathers themselves wouldn't have run for president (but it wasn't because our founding fathers were born in what they considered the United States of America).

 

Your logic is flawed. You are playing a what if game with no actually supporting evidence.

NEWMAHAY

What you are saying is absurd. Obviously the founders couldn't have been born in a country that didn't exist yet.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Article II section 1
The constitution explicitly states that those who were citizens at the time of the founding of the US were eligible to run for president.

My argument is completely rationalized.

George Washington was born in what came the United States of America. He considered a natural born because he was born in a colony that became the United States of America. His parents were citizens of UK and so was he, but mattered was that he was born on what became US soil.

Obama was born in the United States of America in a state of the United States of America. His father was a citizen of the UK. If this was a problem for George Washington, he wouldn't have ran along with our founding fathers. Your logic is inherently flawed.

If you are questioning Obama right to be President then you are questioning George Washington.

No one said anything about Washington being natural born, because he wasn't. He didn't need to be natural born because the constitution explicitly states that all people who were citizens (just citizens, not natural born since those didn't exist yet) at the time of founding were eligible to run for president. @ Warlock - Understanding the influences of the founders is crucial to interpreting their documents and understanding their intentions.
#-37 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.Laihendi

You're an expert on fallacies. You should know which one you just committed.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy. That's just what people say to justify their lack of principles. You either strictly maintain a principle or you compromise it, and when you compromise a principle then anything can happen.

Being pig-headedly stupid isn't a principal.

#-36 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
Lai is approaching Kraychik 2.0 I still doubt anyone can come close to that great man
#-35 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can become president, which would undermine the purpose of the rule. If you say "Oh well he moved here when he was 1 so he should be eligible for president", then someone else can say "oh well he moved here when he was 3", or "he was only 8 when he moved here", and then before long the age limit is thrown out altogether.XaosII

*Correction* If you establish the principle that someone doesn't have to be born in America to become president in America then almost anyone can run to become president

And this is bad because? Let our presidential voting process determine who should and shouldn't be president. If we find a foreign born nominee that presents better ideas, what makes him unfit to be a president? The artificial barriers imposed in the constitution?

Rather have people that don't have an allegiance to other countries. Most countries have native born leaders anyway. Why should that change.
#-34 Posted by XaosII (16534 posts) -

Also anyone who lives in an anti-US country is moving there to get away. If someone moves here to become a politician, then he is coming here with the specific purpose of gaining political power in it. That is not the type of person who should be president.Laihendi

That's a hell of a logical leap there.

When you have explaned why the Canadian born, but lived in the US for 35 years (minus 1 day), isnt "American" enough to run for President - you'll know why Obama is a legitimate candidate.

#-33 Posted by PannicAtack (20937 posts) -

For the love of... If a person is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. Ipso facto, a natural-born citizen.

This thread has no reason to exist.

#-32 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

Lai is approaching Kraychik 2.0 I still doubt anyone can come close to that great manDroidPhysX
I linked a Fox News Article and Kraychik stated Leftist Media. Nobody can touch his greatness

#-31 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

@ Warlock - Understanding the influences of the founders is crucial to interpreting their documents and understanding their intentions.Laihendi

No. The only thing that matters is what the law says. 10 different people can interpret someones intentions and produce 10 different conclusions.

#-30 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Lai is approaching Kraychik 2.0 I still doubt anyone can come close to that great manNEWMAHAY

I linked a Fox News Article and Kraychik and stated Leftist Media. Nobody can touch his greatness

Stuff like that can't be replicated.
#-29 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianAbbeten
No I am not, but it is clear that he intended to be a politician from an early age from his university activities. It is also clear that he was chosen to be president by the 2004 DNC at the latest, because that is the only reason an unknown state senator would ever be given the keynote address at a national convention. Every other keynote speaker before him had a strong national reputation before giving the speech, whereas Obama gave the speech so that he COULD establish a national reputation.
#-28 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianLaihendi
No I am not, but it is clear that he intended to be a politician from an early age from his university activities. It is also clear that he was chosen to be president by the 2004 DNC at the latest, because that is the only reason an unknown state senator would ever be given the keynote address at a national convention. Every other keynote speaker before him had a strong national reputation before giving the speech, whereas Obama gave the speech so that he COULD establish a national reputation.

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. political parties put young, up and coming candidates for national exposure. More after Marco Rubio gives his rebuttal on tuesday for the GOP.
#-27 Posted by XaosII (16534 posts) -

Rather have people that don't have an allegiance to other countries. Most countries have native born leaders anyway. Why should that change.LJS9502_basic

Anwar al-Awlaki, senior Al Qaeda member, was a US born citizen and about 2 years short of the living in the US for 14 year requirement, to run for president.

Where you are born does not correlate to allegiance of your birth place. Let our voting process handle it. Not arbitrary restrictions.

#-26 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianLaihendi
No I am not, but it is clear that he intended to be a politician from an early age from his university activities. It is also clear that he was chosen to be president by the 2004 DNC at the latest, because that is the only reason an unknown state senator would ever be given the keynote address at a national convention. Every other keynote speaker before him had a strong national reputation before giving the speech, whereas Obama gave the speech so that he COULD establish a national reputation.

ahahahahahhaahhaha
#-25 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
I think Lai might have JUST discovered politics.
#-24 Posted by Allicrombie (25117 posts) -
I think Lai might have JUST discovered politics. DroidPhysX
he should work for Fox News.
#-23 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

For the love of... If a person is born in the United States, that person is a citizen. Ipso facto, a natural-born citizen.

This thread has no reason to exist.

PannicAtack
No, because the point I am making is that what the founders meant by "natural-born citizen" is debatable.
#-22 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
i must ask who cares what the founders think
#-21 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]are you suggesting that obama moved here to become a politicianDroidPhysX
No I am not, but it is clear that he intended to be a politician from an early age from his university activities. It is also clear that he was chosen to be president by the 2004 DNC at the latest, because that is the only reason an unknown state senator would ever be given the keynote address at a national convention. Every other keynote speaker before him had a strong national reputation before giving the speech, whereas Obama gave the speech so that he COULD establish a national reputation.

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. political parties put young, up and coming candidates for national exposure. More after Marco Rubio gives his rebuttal on tuesday for the GOP.

Obama wasn't up-and-coming before the 2004 DNC. He wan't anything to anyone outside his district until the 2004 DNC, and then the very next day media pundits were talking about how he should run for president in 2008. And he did.
#-20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150066 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Rather have people that don't have an allegiance to other countries. Most countries have native born leaders anyway. Why should that change.XaosII

Anwar al-Awlaki, senior Al Qaeda member, was a US born citizen and about 2 years short of the living in the US for 14 year requirement, to run for president.

Where you are born does not correlate to allegiance of your birth place. Let our voting process handle it. Not arbitrary restrictions.

AQ is not a country. And no I'd rather not let the voting process handle it.  Money and charisma are what get votes.  Not honesty and integrity.

#-19 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] No I am not, but it is clear that he intended to be a politician from an early age from his university activities. It is also clear that he was chosen to be president by the 2004 DNC at the latest, because that is the only reason an unknown state senator would ever be given the keynote address at a national convention. Every other keynote speaker before him had a strong national reputation before giving the speech, whereas Obama gave the speech so that he COULD establish a national reputation.

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. political parties put young, up and coming candidates for national exposure. More after Marco Rubio gives his rebuttal on tuesday for the GOP.

Obama wasn't up-and-coming before the 2004 DNC. He wan't anything to anyone outside his district until the 2004 DNC, and then the very next day media pundits were talking about how he should run for president in 2008. And he did.

So my point is proven. ty
#-18 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders think

The constitution has no meaning if the intentions of its writers are not taken into consideration. If you don't care about what the founders thought, then you don't care about the concept of a constitutionally limited government.
#-17 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders think

The constitution has no meaning if the intentions of its writers are not taken into consideration. If you don't care about what the founders thought, then you don't care about the concept of a constitutionally limited government.

this is laughably untrue and i don't believe for a second that you actually think this
#-16 Posted by sonicare (53448 posts) -

It's not racist, but at this point it is extremely stupid.

#-15 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders think

The constitution has no meaning if the intentions of its writers are not taken into consideration. If you don't care about what the founders thought, then you don't care about the concept of a constitutionally limited government.

I feel sorry for non whites.
#-14 Posted by PannicAtack (20937 posts) -
I need an app for my phone that tells me when Laihendi makes a new thread.
#-13 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
I need an app for my phone that tells me when Laihendi makes a new thread.PannicAtack
Yeah, filed right under 'Comedy'.
#-12 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3760 posts) -

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders thinkLaihendi
The constitution has no meaning if the intentions of its writers are not taken into consideration. If you don't care about what the founders thought, then you don't care about the concept of a constitutionally limited government.

Once again you are assuming that they thought this. The sole interpretation of the constitutions belongs to the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court). They are fine with Obama being our president.

 

And once again your logic is flawed and I will post this again.

George Washington was born in what came the United States of America. He considered a natural born because he was born in a colony that became the United States of America. His parents were citizens of UK and so was he, but mattered was that he was born on what became US soil. Obama was born in the United States of America in a state of the United States of America. His father was a citizen of the UK. If this was a problem for George Washington, he wouldn't have ran along with our founding fathers. Your logic is inherently flawed. If you are questioning Obama right to be President then you are questioning George Washington.

 

Your moronic response will be "But USA didn't Exist". They know it didn't but people that were born on UK territory before it became USA (but then later became the United States) were allowed to run. People born on UK territory that didn't become the USA were not.

 

#-11 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] BREAKING NEWS: U.S. political parties put young, up and coming candidates for national exposure. More after Marco Rubio gives his rebuttal on tuesday for the GOP.

Obama wasn't up-and-coming before the 2004 DNC. He wan't anything to anyone outside his district until the 2004 DNC, and then the very next day media pundits were talking about how he should run for president in 2008. And he did.

So my point is proven. ty

No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. This of course contradicts the mainstream media's official narrative about how Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate that everyone expected to win. Clinton was never going to win in 2008. The whole purpose of her campaign was to create a media frenzy for Obama and give him an easy win in the general election.
#-10 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -

]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. Laihendi
Ty for proving my point again

#-9 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]i must ask who cares what the founders thinkNEWMAHAY

The constitution has no meaning if the intentions of its writers are not taken into consideration. If you don't care about what the founders thought, then you don't care about the concept of a constitutionally limited government.

Once again you are assuming that they thought this. The sole interpretation of the constitutions belongs to the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court). They are fine with Obama being our president.

 

And once again your logic is flawed and I will post this again.

George Washington was born in what came the United States of America. He considered a natural born because he was born in a colony that became the United States of America. His parents were citizens of UK and so was he, but mattered was that he was born on what became US soil. Obama was born in the United States of America in a state of the United States of America. His father was a citizen of the UK. If this was a problem for George Washington, he wouldn't have ran along with our founding fathers. Your logic is inherently flawed. If you are questioning Obama right to be President then you are questioning George Washington.

No I am not questioning George Washington's legitimacy. The constitution explicitly distinguishes natural-born citizens from those who were citizens at the founding of the country. George Washington was in no way a natural-born citizen, but he was still eligible to be president beyond question. And the judicial branch does not have a monopoly on truth. It is possible for the judicial branch to be wrong (they have been many times) and even corrupt (they have been this many times as well).
#-8 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Obama wasn't up-and-coming before the 2004 DNC. He wan't anything to anyone outside his district until the 2004 DNC, and then the very next day media pundits were talking about how he should run for president in 2008. And he did.Laihendi
So my point is proven. ty

No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. This of course contradicts the mainstream media's official narrative about how Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate that everyone expected to win. Clinton was never going to win in 2008. The whole purpose of her campaign was to create a media frenzy for Obama and give him an easy win in the general election.

Sounds pretty up and coming if he was chosen as a keynote speaker. Oh hey look he's President now. Twice.
#-7 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. DroidPhysX

Ty for proving my point again

How is a senate majority leader or vice-president "up-and-coming"? They are almost as high as you can go in the political echelon.
#-6 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] So my point is proven. ty

No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. This of course contradicts the mainstream media's official narrative about how Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate that everyone expected to win. Clinton was never going to win in 2008. The whole purpose of her campaign was to create a media frenzy for Obama and give him an easy win in the general election.

Sounds pretty up and coming if he was chosen as a keynote speaker. Oh hey look he's President now. Twice.

He wasn't up and coming until AFTER the address. He wasn't anything before it.
#-5 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. Laihendi

Ty for proving my point again

How is a senate majority leader or vice-president "up-and-coming"? They are almost as high as you can go in the political echelon.

Oh lawd, the cherry picking.
#-4 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]No your point is not proven. If you look at the keynote speakers at previous DNCs then you will see along list of US senators/congressmen (even some majority leaders), a couple of vice presidents, civil rights activists of national repute, etc. Obama was perhaps the least prominent politician to have ever given a keynote address, so it is obvious that he was being artificially propped up for a presidential run. This of course contradicts the mainstream media's official narrative about how Hillary Clinton was the establishment candidate that everyone expected to win. Clinton was never going to win in 2008. The whole purpose of her campaign was to create a media frenzy for Obama and give him an easy win in the general election.

Sounds pretty up and coming if he was chosen as a keynote speaker. Oh hey look he's President now. Twice.

He wasn't up and coming until AFTER the address. He wasn't anything before it.

I had no idea a US senator is considered nothing these days. Maybe they saw something in him and said to themselves "Sh*t man this guys got what it takes to be president we should put our best foot forward and give him a shot". And now he's the President. Sounds like he was up and coming pretty hard (heh)
#-3 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
when in doubt, it's a conspiracy
#-2 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Sounds pretty up and coming if he was chosen as a keynote speaker. Oh hey look he's President now. Twice.

He wasn't up and coming until AFTER the address. He wasn't anything before it.

I had no idea a US senator is considered nothing these days. Maybe they saw something in him and said to themselves "Sh*t man this guys got what it takes to be president we should put our best foot forward and give him a shot". And now he's the President. Sounds like he was up and coming pretty hard (heh)

He was not a US senator at the time of the 2004 DNC. He was a STATE senator from Illinois's 13th district.
#-1 Posted by DroidPhysX (17088 posts) -
when in doubt, it's a conspiracyAbbeten
Also known as business as usual for Lai
#0 Posted by dave123321 (33617 posts) -
Lai, who is going to be president in 2016?