Obama says that GEORGE ROMNEY would not make a good president. Do you agree?

And Obama thinks he makes a good one.That's a laugh.

Typical idiot Obama! He's a walking talking gaff machine just like his V.P. Joe Bite me! I still can't fathom what people see in him.

Anyone is better than Obama.

How would an idiot that did a terrible job know what a good job was?

and Obama is the guy that's been to 57 states

Anybody would have made a better POTUS than the one occupying the White House right now.

Well, it's a known fact that George Romney, Mitt's dad, was born in Mexico. That could be a problem.

Next time you hear/read some birther nonsense about how Obama can't be a citizen because his dad wasn't born in USA, mention that fact about Mitt's dad.

It is not the parent's birth place that matters, it is the President's birth place in the USA that makes one a natural born citizen. George Romney's birthplace should never matter. On the other hand our POTUS, while having an American mother, and a Kenyan father should not matter. The question has always been the same, where was our POTUS born? The answer and the proof were always questionable.

I agree that the parents place of birth is simply not an issue.
There is no reasonable question about where Obama was born.

But one of the factions in the birther group is claiming that because Barack's father wasn't born in USA that alone eliminates Barack's eligibility.
Some how they never make that point about Romney.

Because George Romney was a citizen, Obama's father never was.

Hahaha. This birther nonsense seems to make it up as it goes along.

No, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your equating the two. You can't say it's the same when it isn't. I'm not saying that Obama's father disqualifies him. Try thinking a little before you comment.

You commented on citizenship, I commented on birth place.
Those two things don't conflict.

Unless you're one of those crazies that thinks Obama isn't a citizen because his dad wasn't.
You should try thinking a little before commenting. Condescension is not a p.o.v., its just a repulsive character trait.

HELLO!! These are your words that I was commenting on.

"But one of the factions in the birther group is claiming that because Barack's father wasn't born in USA that alone eliminates Barack's eligibility.
Some how they never make that point about Romney."

They don't make that point about Romney because one was a citizen and the other wasn't when they were born. See the difference? Also, as a very relevant point, George Romney was always a citizen of the US despite being born in Mexico because both of his parents were US citizens and they chose for all of their children to be US citizens.

Barack Obama's father wasn't a citizen when he was born and never became a citizen.

I was not commenting on his eligibility at all, only your comments.

You're splitting meaningless hairs.
If you're commenting on my comments - then you are commenting on their content - one of the "eligibility issues' birthers won't let go of.

If I'm correct the law says you can be born a citizen outside the states if at least one person is a US citizen.
That certainly covers George Romney.
And should cover Barack Obama. But, somehow the birthers that harp on the "both parents have to be citizens" fixation will simply NEVER accept Obama.

Most of the birthers have a problem with his location of birth, not his parentage. I know that some do.

However, I detest him for his policies and agenda, not his race or where he was born.

Thats reasonable. I'm waiting for some wackjob group to denounce Obama for being left handed.

I read this thread and did not see either one of your address the eligibility issue with the most pertinent point: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that the POTUS must be a natural born citizen. B.O. is not a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen. The Romney example is not the same, because Mitt's father was a citizen when Mitt was born.

So, Nick Name, you are not correct when you say "the law says you can be born a citizen outside the states if at least one person is a US citizen" It is not harping, as you call it, that "both parents have to be citizens" because it is specifically stated as such in Article II, Section 1.

I was guessing about the law.
But, what you're talking about is in practical terms, nonsense.
If to be a citizen you have to provide papers that one or both parents are citizens you would have to prove that their parent(s) were American citizens.
To prove both parents were citizens you would have to prove that their parents, the grandparents were citizens, and the great grandparents.
And you can see where this is going.

By standards you're talking about no one qualifies as a citizen.

Pres. Obama was born in the US, that makes him a citizen. Saying anything else is an indication of stupidity.
Either the various birther factions think people are stupid enough to believe or they themselves are stupid enough to believe. Or both.

Your reply made at least one incorrect statement, i.e., that what I am "talking about is in practical terms, nonsense". It is a very simple matter to determine whether a presidential candidate's parents are American citizens. There is absolutely no necessity to go back to any earlier generations, because those generations are irrelevant, as they are not mentioned in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

President Obama was born in the U.S., so that indeed makes him a citizen. But the rub is that he is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was not an American citizen. That is the provision that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution because they felt that it was an important factor in assuring the President's absolute loyalty to the U.S., by not having one of his parents being a foreign citizen and possibly having any influence upon the person in the office. Your snarky reference to "stupidity" in your reply does not at all deflect or diminish the wisdom that the Founders displayed when they wrote the Constitution.

I might also point out to you that if you really want to take the time to actually read the Constitution, the offices of the President and Vice President are the only ones which require that they be "natural born" citizens. The eligibility requirements for all the other offices specified in the Constitution only require citizenship at the time of being elected, not at birth.

So your definition of 'natural born' only goes back one generation? Why? You're just making stuff up now.
This is just another variation on birther nonsense.

It's not my definition, it was the way the Founders wanted it when they wrote those words into the document. And anyway, how do you get this notion that it needs to go back more than one generation? I'm a "natural born" citizen because both of my parents were citizens when I was born. My grandfather was not a citizen, but that is irrelevant.

How do we know someone's parents were citizens?
Have to see if they qualify. That means we need the background and paperwork on the grandparents.

All this birther stuff is nonsense.

It's pretty simple. In most cases, they just show a birth certificate which documents that they were born in the U.S. If they were not born in the U.S., they show their documentation that they became citizens through the naturalization procedure (and make sure that their naturalization preceded the birth of the child). That's all there is to that. No grandparent "background and paperwork" is necessary!

And "this birther stuff" (as you call it) is not nonsense, but it wouldn't even come up if it weren't for the fact that it's spelled out specifically in the Constitution!

I also serve as an election inspector at every election, and we don't even ask for voters' proof of citizenship, (even though that is a requirement for voting). We simply ask for an ID which has their photograph on it to verify that the name they are using (for us to cross-check the eligible voter registration listing) is actually the person who is standing right in front of us asking us to give him/her a ballot to vote.

Pres. Obama is a citizen. All this talk is proof that birther nonsense is nonsense.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

I never said that he isn't a citizen. I stated that in my post before my last post (or didn't you bother to read it?)!

The problem is: Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen (because his father was not a citizen when Obama was born). Therefore, according to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, Obama is NOT eligible to be POTUS!

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you are wrong on this particular issue.

i agree with jesse obama

Even a dead man would make a better president than he is.

Wasn't he Governor of that 57th state?? Time for the Administration to quit usin' Joe Biden as a tutor!

LOL!

you agree with obama? i didnt think so.

I never agree with that egomaniac!

George Romney might have made a good President. We'll never know as he is dead. Mitt is no George Romney.

Most folks don't vote for dead men to be President, but some dead folks vote for live men to be President. Funny how that works...

George Romney died 17 years ago.

17 years dead? Zombie Romney?
George Romney / George Romero ? You can see the pattern emerging.

Sadly George Romney will never see his son's presidency.

Compared to Obama a orange juice can would make a good president.

Considering the man died 17 years ago, I don't think he'd make a good one either and I'm sure the majority of people in the 57 states also think so.