‘Here you LIE again. There is not a single post you’ve made to me on this thread that even so much as acknowledges the Hawaiian verifications (and their significance under the Full Faith & Credit clause), let alone attempts to explain why such don’t establish Obama’s eligibility.’
Are you drinking? I actually did answer your question. You responded to my answer, so I know you read it.
Yet you have ignored at least half a dozen questions I have asked you. So it’s okay for you to call me a liar for answering a question you claim I didn’t answer, but at the same time it’s perfectly okay for you to ignore one legitimate question I ask you after another.
You should claim you’re drinking even if you’re not. That’s a more honorable explanation that is likely the real one.
Which Post (by number) are you contending contains your "answer" to my point that the Hawaiian verifications establish Obama's eligibility?
I'm going to keep calling you out on your vagueness and avoidance. If you claim to have addressed it, citing the post number isn't all that difficult. I've looked; it's not there.