Cut the CRAP!
You asked me: "What fraud?"
I replied: "How about the ‘birth certificates’ he posted. Do you believe they (not ‘it,’ BTW) are real, or do you believe they help perpetrate a fraud?”
It's only "off subject" because you do not want to deal with the subject.
ML/NJ
He just wants to deflect.
Of course he’s failing.
“Cut the CRAP!”
You cut it. I asked you what fraud, but if you could follow the conversation, you’d realize I was asking for what fraud Obama is accused of NOW. Not what he could possibly be accused of when and if it turns out he’s ineligible.
“It’s only ‘off subject’ because you do not want to deal with the subject.”
You may at some point have invented your own subject, but if you’d be so kind as to go to the transcript, you’d see I’ve been on one track. Obama is not under the same compulsion to offer exculpatory evidence as is a criminal defendant. Because he is not a criminal defendant. If you want to make another argument, go ahead. But leave me out of it.
For your edification, here is the track:
Post #23 by Logical me: “This communists piece of garbage is not an American. He refuses to provide proof because he is not native born. If I were accused of a crime that I did not commit and had proof would I not show proof? Simple answer. Yes I would and it would be my personal responsibility to do so as a real moral person.”
To which I replied in Post #53: “What crime is Obama accused of committing?” Suggesting, if you can follow, that since Obama is, as we all know, not being (officially) accused of a crime, he is not in the same situation as the hypothetical defendant.
Despite your all-caps “crap,” I do believe the record shows it is you who went “off subject,” and that I was not only right but commendably responsible for not allowing the original argument to be totally lost in the haze.