This proves that Phil Berg is a hardhead who
Posted By: can't take "no" for an answer on a...sm on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: It is still on the docket slated for a court date - are you just lazy or what?
twice failed legal action. So you still have presented nothing that back up your claim that this is still on the docket. By the way, ever heard of frivolous lawsuits. They are not confined to medical malpractice, dontcha know?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Phil Berg for Hillary?
Philip Berg is/was an avid Hillary Clinton supporter and filed his motions before the Democratic Convention, didn't he? Besides, the court has not made any demands on Obama to produce anything. He released his birth certificate and the Hawaiian birth announcement, nothing more is required.
Also if you check Obama's official website, you'll see that Michelle Obama has a busy campaigning schedule while her husband is in Hawaii. I don't know, but I don't think it's too strange to think that she may have felt it was important to continue campaigning during his absence at such a crucial time.
You mean MORE than Berg the Boob?
x
I'm thanking God for Mr. Berg
who is standing up to defend the constitution. And no judge should be allowed to throw out a case based on political affiliation. Especially when the judge only signed a piece of paper faxed to him - a question on a lot of minds is "where was this fax from".
The Constitution of the United States is a document that outlines the basis of the federal (national) government of the USA. It was written in 1787 at the "Constitutional Convention," held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in what we now call Independence Hall. The 55 men at the convention are called the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, and are also known as the "Framers of the Constitution." Some of the more famous of the framers are George Washington (the first President of the USA), James Madison (the fourth President of the USA), Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
“We” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
I think God people like Mr. Berg is proceeding to protect our rights.
What part of that do you consider "nutty".
Yes, Berg is a DEMOCRAT.
nm
Thank you, Dr. Phil. :-) nm
nm
Who said anything about Dr. Phil?
For starters, I did not author the original "classical psychopath" post, which Backwards Typist (BT) automatically assumed applied to her instead of the governor (who, by the way, IS a classic psychopath). But I did find the knee-jerk paranoid reaction rather intriguing, so I decided to respond, as is customary on this forum, while exercising 1st amendment rights.
Now here you come along to defend BT and, as is your usual style, you have conflated the situation way beyond the original context, to now include "whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with" mine. Since I was not the original poster and my reply was a response to BT's own paranoid conclusion (and not an original premise of mine), the connections you are trying to make here are, shall we say, rather void of logic.
It does not take a Dr. Phil to look up a simple definition and apply it to a given context. There is nothing particularly judgmental in doing so, especially in light of the fact that I never claimed to be any sort of expert. It is merely an exercise in intellect and logic, concepts which, on more than one occasion, have seemed to cause you to go ballistic, as you are now demonstrating.
If you are so tired of my alleged "holier-than-thou" attitude (your perception, yet not my intent) and condescension, you could always opt to skip my posts and save yourself some aggravation, since you seem to think they are identifiable by my yellow-bellied choice to use sentence form in the name and subject box instead of the more "regular" habit of employing a consistent moniker. You seem to be pretty good at identifying your least favorite poster on this forum, despite the fact that I am not the only one who fails to meet your strict standards of always using a "regular name." I have my reasons for posting in this fashion, but do not necessarily feel compelled to defend or explain myself to you, other than to say that I've BTDT and did not enjoy being stalked by sam night and day for weeks on end when I did use a nick-name. I certainly do not think the tired, worn-out right-wing fringe mantra of "do you have something to hide?" merits further comment.
By the way, as long as we are nitpicking over apostrophe placement, you might want to run spell check on your posts next time, unless you think "been" is spelled "bene". Having a built-in editing tool comes in handy and only takes a few seconds. Wish we had that back in the dark ages in 1974 when I first started transcribing.
Things tend to get a bit murky at this point. When trying to admonish me for having a "lot of nerve speaking for anyone but" myself, you probably should eliminate the part where you are "so sure there are others" who think I am heavy-handed and rude, MS sm......m, or whatever your regular name is. I have no difficulty "owning" my opinions, but am not really interested in engaging with posters who use raw emotions and juvenile catch phrases as a substitute for thoughtful, well researched political debate. If you are ever in the mood to actually confront a real political issue head-on, back up claims with fact and express intelligent conclusions in place of whining, blowing things out of proportion and taking things WAY too personally, I would be more than happy to accommodate.
Well, thank you, Dr. Phil.........sm
Whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with yours are now considered psychopathic and have markers of antisocial behavior and lack of conscience. What gives you the right to pass such judgment on anyone?
Personally, I am a little tired of your holier-than-thou attitude and condescending mannerisms that you have displayed consistently since you have bene posting here without having the intestinal fortitude to sign your posts with a consistent moniker. I'm sure there are others who think your brand of criticism is rather heavy-handed and rude. Now, let's (and it is spelled with an apostrophe, which you would know if you were an MT) think about what that says about your personality type.
Most regular posters on this board use a regular name in posting so we can tell who we are conversing with. You, on the other hand, choose not to. Do you have something to hide? Are you afraid to "own" your own opinions because subconsciously you know you are somehow deficient or inconsistent in your opinions and afraid that you will be called on it? You seem to gain a great deal of satisfaction in elevating yourself to a position of false piety and have no conscience in doing so. And don't bother saying that no sarcasm is intended because each and every one of your posts literally drip with sarcasm. You have a lot of nerve speaking for anyone but yourself.
Hey, Dr. Phil......(sm)
Not even close....LOL.
Berg appealing - Thank God for people like you
If someone wants a link I can provide, but here is basicially what it states. All I say is thank God there are people like Mr. Berg who are upholding the constitution and doing what is right. There needs to be a temporary halt until Obama's legitimacy can be proven. Up until now it has not.
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court
For Immediate Release: - 10/25/08 -
UPDATE: Ruling attached at end. It's a really poor copy, but it is all we have for the moment. Willl put up a better copy when we get one.
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?
So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.
According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.
We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.
Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
Like Dr. Phil Says...and it's true:
"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing." It matters not what y'all think of Dr. Phil.
If you had the truth on your side, wouldn't you produce it?
Enough said.
That's funny - on Dr. Phil?
You would think he would be able to help her!!! LOL!!!
Why do you suppose that Berg the Boob's complaint
Use your noggen. IF he were able to prove (a) that Obama was born in Kenya, (b) that he was an Indonesian citizen whose mother had "renounced" (NOT) his US citizenship, and/or (c) that Obama's HAWAIIAN birth certificate was a forgery...don't you think that a complaint based on "standing," "harm" and/or "disenfranchisement" is a rather convoluted, roundabout way of "getting to the truth?" That burden of proof would be on him and he could not do it because, well...IT ISN'T TRUE
The judge has ruled. If a 34-page rendering is not enough to satisfy you, then Lord knows, there is no reasoning with this pathologic degree of denial. IT'S OVER. Finito. Kaput. Settled. Gone. There's NOTHING there. Period. The end. Time to let it go, already.
Berg is no leftie. He is simply a disenfranchised
and, NO, that does not make him a leftie. The dem party has a broad range of degree of conservativism vs liberalism. A fringe pub is not qualified to judge one way or the other who among the dems is left, right or center, since everyone left of them (including the majority of their own political party) are "lefties." Berg is a Hillary diehard, pure and simple. If you doubt this, just take a look at the timing of when he filed his law suit. He did not challenge O's eligibility until it became apparent that his own candidate was going to lose in the primaries.
Berg is no leftie. He is simply a disenfranchised
and, NO, that does not make him a leftie. The dem party has a broad range of degree of conservativism vs liberalism. A fringe pub is not qualified to judge one way or the other who among the dems is left, right or center, since everyone left of them (including the majority of their own political party) are "lefties." Berg is a Hillary diehard, pure and simple. If you doubt this, just take a look at the timing of when he filed his law suit. He did not challenge O's eligibility until it became apparent that his own candidate was going to lose in the primaries.
If Berg were able to successfully argue on the so-called
he would not be pursuing the "standing" argument. Don't you get that?
Thanks for posting about Phil Donahue. I have not followed him, except sm
way back when when he had his talk show I loved to watch.
I agree with you, the site posted does not prove he is an atheist. I would have to hear it from his mouth to believe it.
I think Dr. Phil is kind of a bully.
Oprah and Ellen, and Dr. Phil
are not in a position to force the rest of us to share our wealth, punish us if we do not, while keeping their wealth for themselves. Not a good comparison at all.
Oprah is on record saying that (even with her multi-millions) she does not just hand money to individuals who tell her they need it. Why should she think that would help someone who obviously failed to take care of their own money? They want money? They can go make it the hard way, as she has. (Then she supports Obama. Go figure!)
Obama is more like the minister who preaches fidelity, while having affairs with his parishioners. He's someone who says that to help public schools, all children should have to attend them (except his own.) Lectures on the evils of tobacco, raises taxes on it, while sneaking cigarettes. Gets his own sweet deal on a mortgage, supports the bailout of deadbeats, yet penalizes those who have been responsible with their money. Criticizes company executives for use of corporate jets, then flies on his own jet to Arizona just to sign a bill.
Get the picture? ''Do as I say, not as I do.''
Berg Lawsuit Thrown Out - Case Closed
Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot
By MICHAEL HINKELMAN
Philadelphia Daily News
hinkelm@phillynews.com 215-854-2656
A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot.
Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president.
He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised.
U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24.
They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself.
Surrick agreed.
In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters.
Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion."
The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable."
For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.)
Berg could not be reached for comment last night.
Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.
Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.
The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.
Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4.
Did you ever wonder why most Democrats in politics don't embrace people like Phil.
or should I cally him Phillie. There are some far leftist Democrats that no Democrat worth their salt wants to be hooked up with. Phil is one of them. He has a long list of hates, some of which include cops. He hates them. If you remember his shows from eons ago, he had several shows about them. No politician worth his salt has someone like that on his ticket. Think about it. When was the last time you saw Phil with a politician?
Phil Donahue is the man. Had Bill O'Reilly shaking in his boots.nm
He makes good points and the only thing you get from his stance is that he doesn't want to fight the taliban, which is unfortunate for you NOT true.
Give a quote where he says the US should not fight the taliban.
This actually proves that...
global warming is a naturally occurring event. Not manmade. No greenhouse effect by man.
You helped my point, in a roundabout way. Thanks!
By the way, your first link didn't bring up anything but someone's nightly news blog on MSNBC. Was there something important on there you wanted us to see?
This proves it
These posters are paid political trolls. I knew they would think up something else. This post is absolutely laughable, asking MTs to come up with $50,000 to $60,000 for such a ridiculous cause so they can become heroes" ....baaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
I think most MTs these days are more concerned with having enough work to pay the light bill and buy groceries.
Hardly? Proves it every day, many more to come.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$444
This proves only 2 things.
First, that Scarborough can criticize Bush, as well as compliment him. He can do both, unlike you. If he sees something wrong, he has the courage to say it; however, he is still a conservative and he still supports Bush. As I said before, he just doesn't *blindly* support him, and he has the ability to be objective.
The second thing it proves is the CON method of doing things is to silence and disparage those who have the audacity to exert their (so far) constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
Scarborough is a respectable man. He loves America and he respects the Constitution. Unlike your *God Bush,* who thinks the Constitution is only a *piece of paper.* The fact that you so aggressively defend someone so obviously devoid of morals and ethics tells me way more than I want to know about you. People like you give me the heebie-jeebies, and I'd just rather associate myself with your kind of people, so I won't be responding to you any more.
You really do belong on the CON board, you know. Your nastiness and constant harassment of people on this board is getting old, is incredibly distasteful and just might wind up being brought to the moderator's attention if it continues.
This just proves my point.
We are still talking about the MJF ad and I never even heard anything about Ben Affleck which just proves that his voice does not reach quite as many people as Rush does. If I had heard what he said I would condemn that as well. I really really do not think there is ever an occasion when it is all right to malign the disabled.
No, joke is on you and proves you do NOT
The writers of the constitution DID NOT have electoral college. It was not written into law until the 1800s it is called "college of electors" and even then, it did not work because they had to amend AGAIN because political parties emerged, which showed electoral college did not work.
When the constitution is spoke of, it should mean as our founding fathers meant it. I say again, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Just proves one thing. s/m
Republicans are carrying on their family tradition, Democrats do the same thing. WHEN will Americans wake up and realize that neither party is what it was for your parents and grandparents? I had a similar discussion this very morning with my son. He doesn't like McCain but he is voting for him. I changed the subject. At least I taught him to think for himself.
Well, it proves that Obama isn't ...
...a terrorist, as he's been ridiculously accused of being.
I'm still worried about Bush finding a reason to declare martial law and creating a dictatorship before Obama takes the oath of office, and I wonder if a terror attack would assist in that endeavor. 
this proves my earlier
post about the popularity of Fox News and the country being a majority of dullards. Not enough information to understand the debates on Meet The Press or other actual news programs, so watch 2 clowns argue. When finished, turn on the wrasslin' channel.
You got it! Obama proves more and more
nm
Your response proves that you obviously , , ,
didn't REALLY listen to his Cairo speech. First of all, he was not "heaping scorn" on the US. He had FIRM words for all parties involved, including us. After all, the US bears just as much culpability as anyone else and an admission to mistakes in the past is long overdue. ALL PEOPLE want respect and, sorry to disagree strongly with you, but the last administration showed anything but respect to these people. Maybe you should go back and really listen to the WHOLE speech, since it is obvious that you only heard the sound bites taken out of context that Fox News chose to play. Your words sound like they came straight from Hannity's ignorant mouth.
History proves that I am right, you can only
cite the Bible.
Bush proves how far removed he is
Rep George Miller
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, President Bush proved once again just how far removed he and his Administration are from the life experiences of most Americans. The President issued an executive order on Thursday that makes it possible for federal contractors to pay extremely low wages to workers hired for the Gulf Coast rebuilding. Bush accomplished this by suspending the 1931 Davis-Bacon law, which says that federal contractors must pay their workers a “prevailing wage” on construction projects.
Contrary to the misinformation coming from the right wing – that prevailing wages are actually high “union wages,” as John Fund wrote on The Huffington Post last week – the truth is that the prevailing wage is just the average wage for a specific job function in a local area. In parts of the Gulf Coast, these wages for construction workers can be low – even as low as $7, $8, or $9 an hour.
Deep poverty is a major part of the story of Hurricane Katrina, as is now plain for all of us to see. How are New Orleanians and other people in the region supposed to get back on their feet if they can’t even make $7 an hour? Hundreds of thousands of people have just lost everything they had. America has to put Gulf Coast workers back to work – and at wages that can help them and their families get back on their feet. Davis-Bacon guarantees a wage floor when they get back to work. If the President wants to help storm victims he should rescind his executive order immediately.
Well these posts proves one thing.
Incredible. But hey, this is truly the left exposed. You don't care about the troops at all. IT's all about politics. Pathetic losers.
Yes, that was very Coulter of you and proves just who the fool really is.
Not the least bit surprised that you're a Coulter groupie, though. I will pray for your sad, sad soul.
Which proves to me it is all about hating Bush and...
very little about *peace.* Sigh.
Still proves Biden will cheat...
When a person won't pony up the money that he owes, that is not paying your debt. He was trying to cheat the company out of a huge payment. He is capable of cheating when it comes to money, why in heck would I want him to have any say about the taxpayers' money? These kind of things say A LOT ABOUT A MAN and his ethics or lack thereof !!!!
exception proves the rule
do that phase strike a familiar note?
Oh my...another Obama fan proves their intelligence
or lack thereof. How sad.
Well, thanks for the compliment -- just proves what i think about people like u
x
This pretty much proves the fact that
this and your hatred for this administration and have been for 8 years. Why did you never give try to give them a chance when they first took office and yet insist on doing so for the Obama administration? Strictly because of the conservative versus liberal views!
This pretty much proves the fact that
this and your hatred for this administration and have been for 8 years. Why did you never give try to give them a chance when they first took office and yet insist on doing so for the Obama administration? Strictly because of the conservative versus liberal views! You will never know what you are missing out of life.
I will have respect for Obama once he proves
nm
Which apparently proves you can be wrong.
Maybe you're just as wrong about Obama, as well.
Either way, the article below shows that this is really a non-story. Nobody seems to be listening to Bush any more. He couldn't even get enough reporters to fill the seats for his final press conference, so he had to fill the empty seats with people who weren't even reporters, just to make it look like he had a full room (perhaps his final attempt to deceive Americans).
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_Obama_appears_to_have_skipped_0116.html
If you did not understand it, that proves my point......nm
nm
It proves the extent of the torture that was used...(sm)
as well as shows the public exactly what the last admin did. It puts in front of the public (in particular republicans who would be against prosecuting the Bush admin) the facts. I honestly think the main point of showing pics is to gain public support for the prosecution of the last admin. I think dems are kind of fighting the battle before it gets there to make prosecution easier......but that's just my opinion.
Proves you don't read anything..Says in the 1st sentence he is Gov. Lynch of
x
Taking a look at the data proves your points...sm
From 2000 - 2004, America has seen a significant increase in poverty each year.
I agree with sm that people must have personal responsibility and not sit around waiting on a check when they are able bodied and can work. These are not the poor that I'm concerned with. I speak of the poor single mother or father who works 2 jobs, the poor mother and father who both work and still can't make ends meet. Heck, you can still just be getting by with a college education in today's economy. Look at inflation. In just ONE year gas prices have doubled. And look at the housing market. Prices of other necesities are also rising and the mean income is still 40,000.
I agree with Zauber, everyone can't be on the top, some people have to settle for lower paying jobs due to life circumstances. But if the big business had it their way, they would still be paying 4.25 an hour. They griped about going to 5.15 an hour.
Do you think this administration will even attempt to increase min. wage? They think and obviously believe Rush Limmy when he says, only teenagers who are working for extra money to buy Ipods are working min. wage jobs. They are out of touch.
Not having a good father in the household is one of the root cause issues that needs to be addressed, but I wouldn't be so quick to put this as the main or only cause of poverty. There's no one answer to the problem, but I do hold our local, state, and federal government responsible to do their part - make sure employers pay a fair wage and have fair labor practices, control inflation, and education.
That sign is disgusting. I guess it just proves...
that is another right that soldiers die for: for the right to be stupid and thoughtless and devoid of common courtesy.
Obama's Chicago thugs, one after another, proves
nm
|
