Posted on 03/04/2010 9:27:19 AM PST by Mamzelle
Please read about Breitbart's opening salvo against John Podesta and Media Matters.
This is not paranoia. Media Matters, a Soros outfit, is hiring "interns" to come on conservative forums and try to sow division, slow down momentum, forment confusion. And they are better at it than they used to be. They don't curse and swear like liberals on their own forums do.
LOL!! humble just can't win!
Out of the blue you tried to turn this thread into a Catholic versus Protestant argument in favor of Mormonism and Mitt Romney, this is a strategy that you have tried before, in fact it is becoming your trademark, or to quote you. "The best thing to be said about Mitt Romney is how the mere mention of his name will send the fundy bigots into an absolute hissy fit."
You came up with the strategy of attempting to pair Catholics with Mormons into an anti Protestant block, thereby coming at Romney service through a fresh angle.
To: Mamzelle
By my count, we already have:
1.The "We hate Mormons" gang.
2.The "We hate Catholics" gang.
3.The "There is no such thing as moderate Muslims" gang. And a few more embarassingly idiotic posters. I hope they are collecting their paycheck from Media Matters.
16 posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33:11 AM by Vigilanteman
You do have a vidid imagination... :-)
You have it nailed to the bullseye.
Sheesh, MHG - a ST fan club!
Actually I've found that the Obama Derangement Syndrome group is my biggest fan club here on Free Republic... gosh... who woulda known? ... :-)
Over a difference of opinion.
Your point, HG, is an excellent one.
It is a matter of maturity, or lack thereof.
I iterate, the Left does not have a monopoly on fanatical, irrational, and/or uncouth behavior. Plenty of that can also be found on the Right.
All you’ve proven is that you disagree with me.... congratulations... :-)
As for Jim Robinson, I’ve posted in support of many of his posts here... and I’m sure he appreciates it too, just like he does from others...
Anything else going on? LOL ...
If you had read the very productive threads - numerous threads, with many polite and information packed replies - about 0bama’s eligibility, you would see that the only reason people are pi**ed off at the trolls is because of the trolls’ history of nasty disruption and deceit.
I’ve read those threads since the summer of 2008 and for anyone who takes even a few hours to go back and read some of the long threads, will see the truth.
The trolls have dished it out, now they are just getting a small taste of their own medicine. If you check pansy’s posting history, for instance, the truth is as clear as day.
You have it nailed to the bullseye.
What? That he disagrees with me... LOL... Yep, I would say he's proven that. :-)
What's the matter, you didn't have a file to copy paste from for that reply?
The content of my post speaks for itself as does your weak attempt to deflect it.
pwn3d
Oh, I still believe the COLB. And the birth announcements. but I am not concerned very much as to how big a liar he may. Much more relevant is this question, IMHO: How selfish is Obama?
I mean you can do a “follow the money” analysis on Obama. Lets call it “follow the benfit”.
Who benefits from the Birthers? Not the GOP. They have disassociated from the birthers, as have most conservatives, like for example Ann Coulter. Ann notes that the MSM/left uses the Birthers for their own benefits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYW0j-_XHQI
And, you have to admit the birthers aren’t winning in court with the NBC thing. Most people don’t believe the Kenya allegation. So, its the left that benefits from the birthers.
And since Obama/Left benefits from you, and Obama has the power to make a lot of this go away, it is clear that he is not making it go away for personal, selfish reasons.
Presidents aren’t supposed to be selfish. They are supposed to look out for all of us, including birthers. To continue to let you guys run around worrying yourselves to death, is cruel, sadistic, selfish, and un-Presidential.
parsy, who blames Obama for the Birther Movement
I don’t read your written diarrhea. Don’t post to me. I don’t post to you.
Nah, just your usual deflections...go post your ridicule of the BC issue to Jim, see what happens
If you had read the very productive threads - numerous threads, with many polite and information packed replies - about 0bama’s eligibility, you would see that the only reason people are pi**ed off at the trolls is because of the trolls’ history of nasty disruption and deceit.
The only problem with that is that from the Summer of 2008 to the election, many were asking for the birth certificate, as I was too (as you can see from my postings).
But, the big problem was that Obama got elected. And then he became President. And then y'all were "going nowhere" with what you were saying.
There was no legal requirement for any candidate to produce a birth certificate and that was the big problem. No one wanted to address that big problem. I did and said (way back then, right after the election) that the states needed to pass a law which made it a requirement for all candidates to produce their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot. And that was the only way to solve that problem.
But, many still pursued court cases that were going nowhere... and so that was the problem later, and after the election. It was accomplishing nothing, while a state law would accomplish something.
And many are still in that mode, as if it's before the election and as if Obama is not the President. He got elected and now we have to get him out in the next election... that's the big problem here... doncha know.
|
Star, it seems we're in agreement on the Constitutional
How would you answer the survey?:Please rate the integrity & honesty surrounding the Answer the following honestly ("1" is LOW, "10" is HIGH):
Rate the integrity & honesty of Obama's
Rate the non-partisanship of FactCheck.org
Rate the integrity & honesty of Nancy Pelosi and the DNC?
|
Then please answer the above survey on the COLB's Chain of Custody.
Nah, just your usual deflections...go post your ridicule of the BC issue to Jim, see what happens
Well, let's just go to Post #536 and see about that... :-)
You were asking ...
So then we birthers are doing the right thing for everybody's assurance by pressing this issue into every court venue all the way up to the Supreme Court. Isn't that right???
Again the two parts... (1) the birth certificate issue, and (2) the natural born status...
I think that all candidates should show their birth certificates, but I also know you're not going to get a court to require that any candidate do this, because it's not legally required for any candidate to show their birth certificate.
And therefore I would advise all FReepers to work for the state law which makes it mandatory for all candidates to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot.
So, there's that one part, with the birth certificate issue.
On the other part, (2) the natural born status, there should be some court case started in which that natural born status of a candidate would be argued and in which it would be heard by the Supreme Court. It needs to be a solid case without precedural errors, with the proper standing (whatever is required) and framed as a Constitutional issue in order to clear up the legal questions that both sides of the issue are arguing.
Now, either it can be constructed that way or it can't. I don't know. But, if it can be constructed as a good court case and make its way up the courts and finally be presented to the Supreme Court -- we still don't know if the Supreme Court will hear it.
I would hope they would, because I think it's a tremendous waste of energy and time for everyone to be arguing about it, when it could be settled once and for all with a Supreme Court decision.
Bottom line... just "get the court case" going that is solid... and follow it... and that's all that anyone has to do, simply report on the progress of the court case.
So, that's concerning the natural born status issue.
Oh and BTW -- the Constitution, which includes Article II, is "the highest law of the land" -- not a Supreme Court decision.
It's the law of the land, except when two opposing legal sides have different takes on what it says... :-)
And then, that's where you get the Supreme Court to come in and weigh in on it and settle it as far as which side has the right take on it -- if either one does and they may not. The Supreme Court may come up with something completely different that the wording of the law in the Constitution means.
And then, what the Supreme Court says about it -- then sticks and that's "it" for that issue.
The only other way that can be changed would be if the people come up with a Constitutional Amendment which would overturn what the Supreme Court said (and that can be done, too...).
Yawn.....blah, balh, blah, SOS
That'll teach me to try calm, rational reasoning.
I'm going back to being an incindiary ass.
I don’t read your written diarrhea. Don’t post to me. I don’t post to you.
If you're posting something about me, then that qualifies for a response, doncha know... and as I saw it, you were posting about me... :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
