Posted on 04/11/2011 8:30:24 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
That's "Bork"; as in "Bork Obunga, before he borks YOU".
Quite legal according to 13th Amendment...
...ok, is that right? OK, just the Dems then. And a RINO or three.
Cheers!
And whiney little Barry is light in the Louffers...
Cheers!
“good observations, agreed. The media manipulation is getting so dull.”
Thanks. Someone posted this on another thread, one about Ann Coulter’s criticism of Trump, when the address to send information to his investigator was asked for following a long post summarizing everything and including scans of documents, links to (some dubious) videos, etc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2703292/posts?q=1&;page=1
The address is around post 101; the post summarizing questions about the birth is in the range of 51-100.
The address to send information is:
Mr. Michael D. Cohen, Executive Vice President
and Special Counsel
The Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10022
CERTIFIED MAIL
“You can’t have a name “Barry” and then secretly change it to Barack.”
True. If your legal name is Barry Soetoro you can’t just up and decide to be Barack Obama. You would have to go to court and get your name changed back legally.
Its not like Ronald Reagan woke up one morning and decided he didn’t want to be Mohammed Sahid anymore so he told everyone to start calling him Ron.
The whole world knows where every one of our President’s was born except BHO. Pretty screwed up.
Thank God! I like him!
I saw that tonite. It looked Plastic and contrived to me.
“I saw that tonite. It looked Plastic and contrived to me.”
I can’t say that I saw it myself, even though I made snarky comments on the other thread about her perhaps being secretly in love with Donald Trump. I was mostly posting my second comment here to add to the list of ways to contact Mr. Trump or his investigative team, particular to eligibility, foreign citizenship and birth issues.
The web Obama has weaved is immense.
I don’t know how it’s going to turn out for him, but you’re right of course - what a web he and his handlers have woven. The real answers might not be what some of the posters here insist they’ll be (as if they actually know, instead of just believe), but it’s a reasonable request to have real responses to these questions.
Quite the rhymer! :)
Normally the opposition Party should go after him. It seems like there is no opposition. They are praising him.
“Normally the opposition Party should go after him. It seems like there is no opposition. They are praising him.”
That’s a very good point. There was someone asleep at the helm of the Republican Party at the time these questions really should have been asked - he’s now been replaced; and the Republican candidate at some point before the election seems to have made the decision to focus on losing gracefully, which he was excellent at, apparently, since he did.
But you could also mark 2008 as the end of the Republican Party, because until the tea party brought life back to them in the November 2010 elections, they were very close to being as out of power as you can imagine a party to be. And even that’s only because the tea party trusted them not to co-opt and betray, which is questionable now, eg. billions of dollars cut only from the increase in spending proposed, without even getting to the debt or the deficit - the trillion dollars we still have to borrow for the budget hailed as a victory by every establishment politician regardless of the letter after their name, R or D.
They seem more afraid of the Tea Party People than they are of the Rats. Or are they Rats too?
It’s hard to tell, with some of them. Comfortable people like to maintain their comfort. Many Republicans are very comfortable. The tea party - or tea parties really, by their very existence, threaten to upset apple carts, but only because that’s what needs to be done to wake people up and change what has been allowed to happen by both parties - the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber two-party system.
Or you could look at it as the stupid party, and the evil party. I think this analogy comes from Thatcher’s Britain, but it’s applicable here.
I think your first example is correct. They are happy with the smaller split of the Loot and less responsibility.
Read the Constitution. Impeachment is limited to removal from office. The Founders wisely limited Congress's power, being fully aware that the Old Country's parliament had the power to chop off the king's head. That's good for popcorn consumption, especially if Guy Fawkes is there to keep the show interesting, but bad for the rule of law.
Maybe. Reagan had to fight the Republican establishment for the nomination. He unfortunately had to retire from public life through his infirmity, but it would have been good if he’d been able to be more present through George H.W. Bush’s first, and possibly because of the absence of his influence, last term, to continue the needed changes in Republican organization.
Perot brought up many, if not all, of these tea party issues long ago, and would maybe have been the corrective needed in Reagan’s absence, but you know what happened. Had he worked the other way, from the grass roots up into state legislatures, governorships, national legislatures, and then the presidency, we might not need to be having this conversation now.
I’m afraid of some such thing myself.
A, “how about a Barry Soetoro” bump.
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.