I’m just saying, you all seem to be all over this, surely you should have come up with something by now. All I’ve ever gotten from any of you are the following lines things:
1) “Barack’s granny or the Kenya ambassador said...”
2) Some conspiracy nut who won’t even give his real name said the COLB is fake, and even then it doesn’t prove anything (you don’t stop to think of the contradiction).
3) The amount of cases brought, how many have gone to conference (as if filing a number of junk lawsuits somehow makes up for the fact that they’re still junk lawsuits), completely ignoring the fact that they’ve all been rejected or thrown out.
4)I’m a troll.
5)I hate/don’t care about/am too cowardly to defend the Constitution.
All of this time put in, and this is the best you can come up with. Yeah, Obama’s going down. Only $10 away now. I beliiieeevvveee.
I’m just saying, you all seem to be all over this, surely you should have come up with something by now.
***See the post above about requiring us good conservatives to prove a negative. Yet another of your classic fallacies. And in this sentence you resort to, once again, the argument from silence.
All I’ve ever gotten from any of you are the following lines things:
1) “Barack’s granny or the Kenya ambassador said...”
***And that is securely placed in an affidavit in the case against Obama in a court of law. If there was more we could do, we’d do it. Your requirement derives from your continued fallacy of arguing from silence, which is forgiveable a couple of times but when the dog returns to its vomit too often, it is evidence you’re simply a CoLB Troll. One of them French Coward trolls, to be exact.
2) Some conspiracy nut who won’t even give his real name said the COLB is fake, and even then it doesn’t prove anything (you don’t stop to think of the contradiction).
***You didn’t even read this affidavit. There’s an actual, bonafide forensics expert signing on with Polarik’s opinion. So you need to stop trolling, just due to this one fact alone.
3) The amount of cases brought, how many have gone to conference (as if filing a number of junk lawsuits somehow makes up for the fact that they’re still junk lawsuits), completely ignoring the fact that they’ve all been rejected or thrown out.
***First of all, only a couple of them have been thrown out by SCOTUS. They’ve been forwarded 4 times, which seems to escape your notice even though it’s repeatedly pointed out to you. That there is evidence of trollhood. How much more evidence do we need to prove you are a troll? And then there’s your attitude. This is a constitutional issue being discussed on this constitutional website over the constitutional eligibility of the highest office in the land and you call it “junk lawsuits”. How many junk lawsuits in ANY other issue have had 5 concurrent cases before SCOTUS and 4 forwards? NONE! That’s proof they’re not junk, so get lost.
4)I’m a troll.
***Glad to see you’re catching on here.
5)I hate/don’t care about/am too cowardly to defend the Constitution.
***Again, glad to see maybe you’re making progress.
All of this time put in, and this is the best you can come up with. Yeah, Obama’s going down. Only $10 away now. I beliiieeevvveee.
***Ahh, thank you. The horse laugh. Another classic fallacy which is usually a sign that the opponent is running out of ammunition. I’ve demonstrated your continued use of classic fallacies and you keep coming back. More and more, signs of a simple troll. Doesn’t it bother you that your comrades on either side of you are Obamanoids? Have you even examined your purpose in your attempts to discourage constitutionalists on a constitutionalist website?
It's up to the candidate to prove their qualifications.
Or, it should be.