So if someone breaks into your house and helps himself to your cash and valuables, and the police know who did it but ignore the crime, you’d be okay with that regardless of the felonious nature of the theft against your person and of your property?
That makes about as much sense as leaving an America-destroying mozlim traitor in the office of our presidency when he is not eligible, nor competent for that matter, to be there, because the screaming leftists who are trying to engineer a communist takeover of the entire world might make a fuss.
That is how they have gotten as far as they have. They engage in hysterical hyperbole, and we give them their way. That has to stop. We are a country of laws, not a country of homosexual, emotional, shrieking men.
Your argument makes not a whit of sense. And your understanding of what “elected” means is outdated at best. The investigations of the last two elections are running apace, and there has been a phenomenal amount of election fraud exposed on the part of the commie democrats.
They had to cheat, so they didn’t win. Chew on all that for a while.
Better analogy. Breaking into a house is a one time event.
Occupying your (white) house is more like what has happened here.
I think of it more like:
So if someone kidnaps your daughter, and the police know who did it but ignore the crime, you’d be okay with that regardless of the felonious nature of the crime, and the fact that he still has your daughter?
He is still hold a knife to Lady Liberty’s throat, and having his way with her every night.
I find this unacceptable.
TheOldLady: “That makes about as much sense as leaving an America-destroying mozlim traitor in the office of our presidency when he is not eligible, nor competent for that matter, to be there, because the screaming leftists who are trying to engineer a communist takeover of the entire world might make a fuss.”
You write as though you know he’s ineligible. If it’s that obvious, where’s the evidence? If you think you have conclusive evidence, explain why pundits like Mark Levin and Michelle Malkin won’t touch the issue. Do you think they’re part of a grand conspiracy, too?
Hey! We’re four years into this, but I’m totally with the Truthers if they eventually produce the proverbial smoking gun. Go ahead! I’m not stopping anyone from investigating Obama’s eligibility. My beef was simply that good conservatives, like Levin and Malkin, were being slandered (on this thread) as pro-Obama, because they don’t buy into the Truther eligibility arguments.
One doesn’t have to be a Truther to be against Obama, my FRiend. That’s what you are—a FRiend, and we don’t have to agree on every issue. My opinion is my own. I’m not stopping you or anyone else from believing whatever you want.