let it go...sheesh.
Links from the article.
Intrade CFTC
http://www.cftc.gov/lawandregulation/federalregister/federalregistercomments/2008/08-004.html
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum. (Trolling 101)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
Trolling 101 thread which has a definition posted
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts?page=18#18
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
IMHO our efforts are better spent on throwing out RINOs and electing Conservatives.
I suggest we start with tossing McCain in 2010.
Let it go Birthers.
for your various CertifiGate ping lists MHGinTN; little jeremiah; LucyT; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; phil dragoo; ernest_at_the_beach; starwise; FARS; sunken civ
___________________________________________________________________
What I learned is that the Constitution means nothing as long as the people vote for an unqualified candidate, the electoral college ignores it, the congress ignores it, and the supreme court swears him in.
In other words, the Constitution is just a piece of useless paper. I’ll remember that. My new attitude towards everyone and everything is, “Yeah? What are you going to do about it. Screw you.”
That would only apply to Obama not having to comply during his current term. It would not absolve him from complying in 2012 should he choose to run again.
-PJ
Interesting... I hadn't heard that. I though InTrade and TradeSports were the same entity, run out of Ireland.
They don't make it clear, but last year when I traced their "Contact Us" information, both sites went back to the same FAX telephone number.
-PJ
First, even after the election people were still trying to define what a "Natural Born Citizen" is, and whether there is a third class of citizenship between Natural Born and naturalized for people who are born citizens but aren't "Natural Born Citizens". Now maybe it isn't defined in US law because the only two jobs it matters for are president and vice president and Congress never considered that someone might toe that line. Does a Natural Born citizen have to be born inside United States territory to two citizen parents (the most restrictive definition I saw which would have even eliminated McCain)? Is anyone born in the United States to anyone Natural Born based on the fact that they were born a citizen according to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment (least restrictive definition I saw)? Can a Natural Born citizen have a dual citizenship at birth, or does that eliminate him from the Natural Born category?
Second, the method of getting a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth remained fuzzy (although I might have missed the definitive answer). How long after the birth could you apply for one? What documentary evidence did it take to get one? Is a mother's claim sufficient?
Next, the aim of the investigation seemed scatter-shot. Was the attempt to prove that Barack Obama was born outside of the country? Was it to prove that he gave up his citizenship when his stepfather brought him to Indonesia?(with a followup question of whether a parent can give up a child's US citizenship, or if it can't be given up until he's 18 years old?) Was it to prove that he was born with a dual citizenship and therefore might be unable to be President? We never hit one solid reason why he wasn't eligible, instead we threw up a lot of "well, it could be this" choices.
Also there seemed to be a tenacity on holding onto evidence which didn't matter anymore. My primary point on that were the people who tried to prove that the originally published COLB was a forgery (as opposed to an official document produced by the State of Hawaii). A lot of Freepers made a big deal about white borders around the text on the first COLB posted. However it was pretty clear to me those were artifacts from having a JPEG image that was compressed way too much and trying to compare it to a less compressed "official" version. When I said so some were questioning whether I was a troll.
Here’s a hypothetical I posted at Intrade, which generated some insightful conversation.
https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/555/2279.page
Here’s a set of hypotheticals for you. Let’s say you’re a loyal Roman republican with 5 buddies watching Caesar cross the Rubicon with his army, and you know full well what that means for the Roman republic. What is your duty at that point?
Let’s say you’re a loyal German who believes in democracy and you see Hitler making tanks instead of VW’s as he has promised the peepull. What is your duty at that point?
Let’s say you’re a loyal american constitutionalist and you see a marxist usurper cheating his way to the presidency, you file a lawsuit and it gets thrown out of SCOTUS within a week of the inauguration. What is your duty at that point?
I know, I know... no one ever really addresses a good hypothetical. Here’s an example: If the sky were green, would more people have green eyes? Many people say stuff like, “of course the sky ain’t green” or they go into the physics behind why the sky ain’t green or they ask you why you aren’t in with the yellow-eyed crowd or they say green-eyed people are just monsters or all kinds of things, but they never really address the hypothetical. So I shouldn’t hold out any hope that you’d be different.
But at least I’m on record with trying to stop this constitutional travesty and if I wander back to my farm in the highlands rather than continue the fight through further futile Roman Empire politics, that’s my business. The only guy who survived in that movie of ‘300’ was the one whose job it was to tell the history.
“Certifigate Post Mortem”
If anyone wants proof of “life after death”..., just keep watching Certifigate... :-)
Did you really think anything would come of the birth certificate issue? Obama could have been from Mars and it wouldn’t have mattered.
The Keyes vs. Bowen case still has not been heard in Superior Court in Sacramento, by the way.
IOW, post mortems are premature.
I just read the below in a news article. President Obama is calling for “transparency” in government. Funny that this doesn’t include BCs. Quote follows:
In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.
Just because a government agency has the legal power to keep information private does not mean that it should, Obama said. Reporters and public-interest groups often make use of the law to explore how and why government decisions were made; they are often stymied as agencies claim legal exemptions to the law.
“For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Obama said.
Bump for later.