Posted on 12/03/2008 4:53:04 AM PST by Raquel
Mr. Non Sequitur certainly seems to have an apt name for posting. He clearly is ignoring the affidavits, proof of citizenship in another country that would have been inconsistent with U. S. citizenship, use of visas that would have been inconsistent with U. S. citizenship, indication of his mother’s not meeting the requirements, the law in Hawaii at the time, and the common assumption that missing documents should not be found to be in favor of those who allege their are problems with them when those in whose control they are could but do not produce them. Then there is the question of the Polarik reports exposure of the use of altered documents by the Obama campaign and those closely working with it. In the law, the use of altered documents raises a presumption of fraud.
And in the case of those Presidents there were no suspicious circumstances such as we have just pointed out. It will be interesting to see if trolls will be able to effectively suppress the truth by the sort of distortion and misrepresentation that you are engaging in.
When you got your driver's license, the DMV must have asked for proof that your were over 16. And? You told them to prove that you weren't?
C'mon!
And I'm assuming Obama did the same thing. So if the DMV vouches for him what more do you want?
How can they when you're on the job?</sarcasm>
Now you want to change the subject? Fine.
Having a driver’s license isn’t one of the constitutional requirement for the Presidency.
How silly the argument they are using is. It’s like telling the bartender that they have to serve you if they can’t prove you’re under 21.
No, but obviously your state requires you to provide your birth certificate to get a drivers license. That's state law and there is nothing you or I can do to get around it. But there is no federal law tasking a particular agency with checking the candidate's credentials. There is no law requiring Obama present his birth certificate. It'd be nice if there was, that would certainly solve any issues we're having. But there isn't. And until there is there is no way we can force Obama to present his birth certificate other than in court, and there is no way that will happen unless solid evidence in presented showing he is not eligible to be president. And so far the cupboard is bare in that department. So continue trying to make the link between the DMV and the presidency if you want, it's still apples and oranges.
There is certainly a better chance that propagandists such as yourself will less successful because of forums such as this that enable us to speak the truth.
It must make you feel real good to engage in falsehood in order to trash the Constitution.
Have you ever, by any chance, had to take an oath to protect and defend it against enemies foreign and domestic?
Sure.
It must make you feel real good to engage in falsehood in order to trash the Constitution.
Please point out the falsehood I've engaged in. What with you being so high on speaking the truth and all.
Have you ever, by any chance, had to take an oath to protect and defend it against enemies foreign and domestic?
Yes and I did it for almost 30 years, too. Navy.
>I would be satisfied merely to know exactly where in Honolulu the Anointed claims to have been born.
<
A manger in the back of some Honolulu hotel. Didn’t you hear? Woe to ye who hath questioned the chosen one.
That explains it. ;)
Looks like people in high places are covering for him. Guess one can expect the same behaviour while he is President.
Looks like people in high places are covering for him. Guess one can expect the same behaviour while he is President.
NS is not a troll.
NS just happens to have a different view on things and he has supported his view point very well.
I dont agree but that hardly makes him a troll.
I see, what does outright misrepresentation of the truth make one other than a troll? When it involves misrepresentation of what the Constitution says and requires it hardly makes one a patriot.
It is difficult to see, for example, how denial of the fact that there are ample suspicious circumstances, and even statements and affidavits supporting the challenge to Obama’s eligibility signals a devotion to the truth of the matter.
Asertions that earlier presidents who had no such suspicious circumstances are equivalent to Obama hardly make one seem to be interested in an honest appraisal.
I just did.
What can you point to in the situation of any past president that presents suspicious circumstances such as those that have surfaced with regard to Obama?
Did anyone of them, for example, refuse to reveal his birth certificate? Is there any one of them who would have stood silent while a fraudulent document purporting to be their birth certificate were posted in a public medium by those affiliated with their campaign?
As pointed out, the use of altered documents, in the law, raises a presumption of fraud.
None of them were required to, and neither is Obama.
And you've yet to point out any falsehood.
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.