Posted on 07/09/2015 9:51:39 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Is this your method of informing me that you aren’t interested in looking at the history?
Here is a general observation gleaned over many years. Obama’s apologists may be deadeningly repetitious when they stick to their talking points. Get them off script, however, and they are more entertaining than Obama with a broken teleprompter.
Sadly, I think most have learned the hard way to never, ever go off script. The days of inadvertent Obama-defender hilarity are probably over for good. (Unless some brand new Obots appear. Then anything could happen.)
Perhaps the Extreme Court can declare everything he did null and void.
It really is a dead issue.
I generally throw them for a loop. Some of the stuff I throw at them they have never encountered before, and as far as I am aware, i'm the only one that was looking into those particular musty archives to find that stuff.
Captain dumbass has a simple method of dealing with it. He completely ignores any point or evidence put forth, then goes right back into his spiel.
Sadly, I think most have learned the hard way to never, ever go off script. The days of inadvertent Obama-defender hilarity are probably over for good. (Unless some brand new Obots appear. Then anything could happen.)
Exactly right. It really isn't worth the trouble to trade facts or reason with them, just mock them and go on.
“just mock them and go on.”
They like to be on the dishing out end of mockery. Few things upset them more than being on the receiving end. It is hard, though, not to mock people who devote their lives to defending Obama. They simply cannot grasp the magnitude of his dishonesty.
I think in the case of some of them, they aren't defending Obama as much as they are their own children, or perhaps those of people they love.
"Natural born citizen" is the gold standard for citizenship, and nobody wants to believe that someone they care about has a lesser version. It just rankles them.
This is what I think is the prime driving factor behind Cpt dingleberry. It's personal, not academic.
Never underestimate the "magnitude" of pure hate that is at the bottom of the support for Obama & the effort to fundamentally change America. There is no other reasonable explanation for the comprehensive war on heritage, which has been going on from his days as a Community Organizer, idolizing notorious America haters on.
Whenever he has a choice to make, where one steeped in the philosophy of American liberty & constructive behavior would make one choice, he invariably makes the other. There is a point where "coincidence" has to be ruled out.
Obama is merely the symptom of the larger problem.
Absolutely. The combination of an intellectually & morally corrupt element dominating much of Academia over the past two generations, with, in turn, a dominating influence among contemporary journalists, broadcast media, as well as a neutered politics, theology, etc., have all contributed to a conditioned electorate, where very little independent judgment is still possible. 99% of the political & social commentary today, is simply a parroting of Leftist slogans; even where the speaker is trying to offer reasons to oppose the Leftist programs.
We either wake up now, or the long night of confusion & tyranny descends.
I have pondered the exact point you made. What made me contemplate it is the difference between Bill Ayers and Obama. Ayers actually had a plan to remake America. It was a sick, immature, genocidal plan, but the end result was Ayers’ idea of utopia.
Obama by contrast has never been specific in his plan. He spouts wealth redistribution, social ‘justice,’ fundamental change and the idea that we are an Islamic country (yes, he’s actually said that). But there is never a specific, step by step plan such as that articulated by Ayers.
If one examines Obama’s actions, as you do in your post, we see exactly what he’s up to. He’s not creating, or attempting to create, a radical leftist utopia. He is simply destroying. He is taking a POTUS-sized wrecking ball to the country and reducing as much of it as he can to smoking ruins.
Here is the difference. Ayers, an actual US citizen, wants to recreate his homeland in his twisted, perverted, yet to him, ideal, image.
Obama, a foreigner, simply wants to trash and destroy the place. You are right; he hates the USA. But he hates it as only a foreigner could, hence the wholesale destruction.
We are in a deep hole, and will only get out by a monumental effort.
“I think in the case of some of them, they aren’t defending Obama as much as they are their own children, or perhaps those of people they love.”
You could be right. Don’t underestimate their sappy, saccharin love for Obama, however. Back before they learned the peril of departing from their prepared script,y.p I asked some of them, including Crunch, about what they considered the good things Obama has done for US citizens. The irrational lengths to which they went in their attempts to make it appear Obama cared about anybody but illegals, ‘his’ people, and Muslims was incredible.
Oh, they love the guy alright. Like a man-crush, they love him
“We are in a deep hole, and will only get out by a monumental effort.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Well, before I got here, was it hashed out that citizenship is a matter of domestic law? Or that the "grandfather clause" was enacted for the benefit of the foreign born patriots, not for Washington, etc.? Or that the 39th Congress clearly and consistently indicated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was declaratory of existing law, and that the existing law on birth citizenship (natural born citizen) was jus soli? Or how Justice Gray correctly interpreted both the pre-Amendment history and the intent of the 39th Congress?
Because all of these things you've been wrong about. If this was hashed out earlier, you didn't learn your lesson.
anything he hasn't seen before, he just immediately dismisses without having allowed any of it to pass through his cognitive facilities.
Identify ONE example. Really, just one. Hey Dumbdumb, once again I'm calling your bluff, and you're going to fold your cards. Coming from the dolt who skips past anything more than 4 paragraphs, the claim I've skipping past stuff is too rich. (Though, hey, there's an audience now. Fun.)
I've researched this subject for years
And yet you consistently misread history and botch anything legal you touch. All that research and so little intelligent to show for it.
and I've found lots of interesting connections between various events, and they fill out a lot of the missing details of which most people are unaware
And as I've shown, those "interesting connections" are just your vain imaginings; once one digs into your supposed sources, they prove illusory.
He simply wants the answer to conform to what he wishes it is
Once again you attempt to project your own failings onto me.
Given how badly you've misquoted some sources (e.g, J. Wilson) and misread others (e.g, Otis, Story), it doesn't appear you looked these things up the first time.
When are you going to start?
You're too stupid and witless ever to do that. Dream on.
Captain dumbass has a simple method of dealing with it. He completely ignores any point or evidence put forth, then goes right back into his spiel.
Again, identify A SINGLE POINT you've made I've ignored. Go on. Just try.
You're going to fail again, DumbDumb. You won't find a single significant point you've attempted I haven't beaten back into a pulp. (I'm saying substantial points, not some bit of fluff or tangent.)
But I look forward to noting your failure here, yet again. Once again, I'm calling the outcome right here.
Don’t give a crap about your opinion. Not even going to read it.
Tried treating you like an adult. It was a waste of time.
Your opinion is unworthy of consideration.
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.