Posted on 09/07/2009 6:09:15 AM PDT by Free America52
The real "Birthers" are the people who are not demanding Obama prove his eligibility. They don't demand it, because they believe he can't!
Yes, as far as I know.
I’m just a-wonderin’ how some of the things people here say about Judge Carter will change if he doesn’t produce the results some want.
You gotta read these 3 web pages concerning a writ quo warranto - it may be the only way to get him to pony up the documents or risk losing his office:
Part 1
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/
Part 2
Part 3
Interesting stuff ...
And just what work is that???
And BTW, appreciation does not pay the bills. He better be getting his paychecks on time and I trust it will be time and a half for his work this Labor Day.
Letsd try again. THE DOJ is an attorney for the defence of a government office.....Do you understand that?
This would end tomorrow if Obama released his bona fides.
That he has spent $2 million on private attorneys, much of it illegally, and is now relying on DOJ attorneys to hide his background says this guy has something to hide.
Just ask yourself, how, in the millions of kids that went to school in Hawaii, did Obama’s kindergarten records just happen to get lost?
That's just one of the hundreds of legitimate questions this guy needs to answer.
Ditto. I appreciate your logic, N-S.
N-S makes logical arguments on this subject. He’s incorrect, but his arguments are logical and should be considered. :)
He will say the same about my arguments - they’re logical but ultimately incorrect. We agree to disagree, but we do so without calling each other names. It just isn’t necessary.
Clearly, I understand that fact, since I’ve posted it multiple times on this thread. Asking me if I understand that is insulting.
If you want to have a discussion, be polite. Otherwise, I won’t converse with you.
I have repeatedly seen you browbeat other posters until the Mods had to step in and tell you to back off, that’s not debate or discussion, it’s borderline fascism and it reflect back on anyone that wants to see this man exposed for what he is.
So I got your own personal code word wrong, you treat anyone that doesn’t toe your line as if they don’t have the right to be heard.
In fact you are begining to sound just like one of Non Sequitur’s favorite targets oNlY WitHOut The wilD CaPiTOlizaTiOn
Free Mortie!
And for NS s/he has gone on for years trolling way before Obama was on the scene.
Just trying to figure out where you lose the logic of the explanation: Do you understand that the DOJ does NOT defend the person in the office for their personal behavior?
NO, Just trying to figure out where a freeper loses contact with why the DOJ should not be defending BO in this case.
THE DOJ is an attorney for the defence of a government office.....Do you understand that?
Are you suggesting that if a fraud were perpetrated before Obama had the office, Obama now has the benefit of civil servant lawyers?
Truly, we have entered the Twilight one.
The guy commits a crime and then has the government defend him?
As FU’d up as everything around this guy is, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he gets away with it.
***
Well, someone could really roil things up if they request that Holder institute a motion for a writ quo warranto ...
If he doesn’t do it, they can ask the same of the U.S. Attorney for DC ...
Its an either/or deal - only one has to consent ... Which would be funny - since the Justice Dept. would be prosecuting it’s own boss (Obama) ...
If neither consent, a third party can go ahead and file the motion on behalf of the United States ...
No need for the AG or the US Attorney, since they had their chance ...
Fair enough.
The DOJ represents the government in all legal matters. The DOJ must defend federal law. The DOJ must also defend the interests of the government.
Personal actions, to me, would reflect actions taken by someone that are outside of or irrelevant to one’s official duties. So yes, the DOJ would not be expected to defend those actions.
However, one’s negligence in performing one’s duties would not be a personal action because the action/inaction is directly relevant to one’s official duties. Negligence is the failure to act when one is obligated to do so.
“And BTW, appreciation does not pay the bills. He better be getting his paychecks on time and I trust it will be time and a half for his work this Labor Day.”
A fine example.
You do not agree what his ideas. And appear to believe that the only way he could present the conclusions he does is if he was paid to do so.
Not a different assessment of the facts. Not different opinions arrived at in good faith. Not simply being mistaken, the result of unclear thinking, ignorant or just plain old wrong.
Instead he must have been paid to says what he does.
How does that bring anything to the discussion?
Can you imagine in any way that his comments can be taken at face value as having been arrived at honestly or in good faith?
Indeed!
every citizen of the united states is injured by an unqualified man as president......theOne and only’s DOJ is full of it.
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.