“I forgot.
How about the ‘birth certificates’ he posted. Do you believe they (not ‘it,’ BTW) are real, or do you believe they help perpetrate a fraud?”
You’re getting off subject. Originally I was responding to a poster that said if they were ever accused of a crime and could offer evidence to clear their name, they’d do it. In such a case as Obama is found ineligible, certainly cases could be written up to trap him for perjury or fraud. But that’s irrelevant to the original point.
The hypothetical situation was that the poster was currently being accused of a crime. Proceedings against Obama are not of a criminal nature, hence my question as to what crime Obama’s being accused of. There obviously being none, the analogy was specious. He has no obligation to offer exculpate himself for the reasons given.
Cut the CRAP!
You asked me: "What fraud?"
I replied: "How about the ‘birth certificates’ he posted. Do you believe they (not ‘it,’ BTW) are real, or do you believe they help perpetrate a fraud?”
It's only "off subject" because you do not want to deal with the subject.
ML/NJ