Jack of Hearts
Posted on 02/26/2009 1:15:06 PM PST by jackofhearts
I have it on impeccable authority but cannot disclose my source within the Fox Network. Rest assured that Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdock are sitting on the Obama eligibility/birth certficate story. Everyone else wants to jump all over it, including Sean Hannity.
I say storm the Ailes/Murdock fax machine/email servers--let them know (politely) we need this issue thoroughly.
Maybe someone has the email/fax numbers?
You referred to me saying this — “THERE YOU GO..., that pretty much explains what the “Obama Derangement Syndrom” people (here on Free Republic) are doing. You said it — “providing innuendo” — and that’s all.”
Then you started your reply by saying — “As for defining “Obama Derangement Syndrome,” it is nothing of the sort. I am not endorsing this behavior out of blind hatred for Obama. I’ve been endorsing this behavior to be used against ALL Democrats ALL the time. Call it “Democrat Derangement Syndrome” if you must, but I am not an ODS victim.”
—
Okay, let me say something more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome, in connection with the “innuendo” reference of yours.
I said this exemplifies exactly what is going on with Obama Derangement Syndrome because all that is provided is innuendo, allegations, speculations and various “reasonings” as to why Obama is not qualified — but yet — no one is able to produce any evidence to a court of law which would require the court to act (and a court *would act* with hard evidence). Since that hard evidence for a court of law is lacking — all that is left is the innuendo and allegations and other (as listed)...
It’s called “derangement” (in the phrase) because whomever thinks that a court is going to act on allegations, without evidence and expect them to do something to remove a President from office — is certainly *deranged* (in more ways that one...).
Now perhaps you’re not in that crowd and merely want to do the “political dirty tricks” as a “methodology” for the Republicans (since, as you put it, the Democrats do it, too).
Well, I think a number here on Free Republic don’t look at the “innuendo” as merely a “political strategy” — but for them — they look at “innuendo” as *proven fact* — and get mad at the courts because they don’t act on the innuendo.... LOL... (i.e., the “derangement” part...)
So, while you may be “cooking up political strategy”, that doesn’t bear on the court case and needing *hard evidence* in a court of law to get a judge to act.
—
And on down your comments, you were saying — “Therefore, it is the other, softer, backdoor, “whisper” methods that work so well for Democrats, that must be used here. That’s what I advocate, and have been advocating for all issues Democrat ever since signing up here.”
Well, as for me, I can’t engage in a whisper campaign, unless it’s “whispering” what I know to be true. BUT, if that’s the case (that it’s true), I’m not going to be “whispering” it. I’ll be yelling it... LOL...
So, I’ll stick to the truth of the matter. And that’s why I post on these Obama Derangement Syndrome issues — because I’m posting to the *truth of the matter* — in what is going on here.
As far as *what is true* about Obama’s qualifications — that’s an *unknown* at this moment. Since no one has provided the hard evidence in a court of law — all one can do is guess and speculate and “reason” from this or that and so on.
I can truthfully state that Obama has not shown his original birth certificate, but correspondingly, I can truthfully state that apparently no one else has been *required to do so* by law — other than a few who have “voluntarily” done so, as a “political gesture” (like McCain, for example). For Obama, he was not going to do it even as a “political gesture” but *only* if required to do so. And we certainly found out that he wasn’t required by law to do so.
—
And then you were saying — “The mantra is “Perception is more important than reality. The perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty.” That’s why Democrats were so focused on “guilt by association” during the Jack Abramoff scandal, whether the Republican was involved with him or just took a small campaign donation. It’s also why the MSM worked so hard to surpress the equivalent Rezko scandal of Obama, or the Hsu scandal for Hillary Clinton. They know the value of shaping perceptions, even if they aren’t true to the degree of proof required in a court.”
Oh, you already have some “adherents” to your philosophy here. Your strongest proponents of this “whisper campaign” and “perception of guilt is just as damaging as being guilty” — are the Obama Derangement Syndrome people, here on these posts.
They exercise their belief in your philosophy by calling those who disagree with their position as “liberals” as “Obots”, as “trolls” as “Democrats” and as “DU posters” (who come over here) in an effort to “make guilty through perception”...
Yes indeed, you’ve already converted some on these threads, as I’ve seen posted to me... LOL...
I want the trolls to ignore me but sometimes one (or one screen name inhabited by more than one) will post things to me. I don’t read them; just as I don’t like to step in dog excrement. :-)
LOL! But mine is not the philosopy of the ad hominem, which is what you listed as examples. I see that as a first-response tactic akin to swearing when a more intelligent reply escapes them, but it is not my tactic. I hint at accusations of fact, without necessarily having all the facts in possession.
-PJ
You said — “I have to say this man has broken the trust of the American people, probably because he has no regard for us.”
To get to the “basics” of the matter — it’s right here. When you say that he has broken the trust of the American people — then my “political answer” (since this is “politics”) — is simply — *DO NOT ELECT THIS MAN!* — then.
And that’s where your whole argument breaks down. He was elected, because “the American people” voted for him in greater numbers than those for whom you say he “has broken the trust”.
The basic problem was that he was elected. So, that indicates that about 10 million more people say that he did not break their trust — than those who said he did break their trust. And that’s what the political system (of elections) is all about. We lost the election.
So, it then comes down to *legal matters* — if you lose by “political matters” (which we did by about 10 million votes...).
And in the “legal matters* it has been apparently shown that there is “not a legal leg to stand on” in getting Obama out of office.
Thus, we lost by political process (10 million voters more) and we’ve apparently lost by legal process (no courts will remove Obama from office).
That’s the situation...
I believe that Pelosi certified his eligibility. If she knew he was not eligible she’d get the heave ho too. We can only pray.
By the way, as a followup to my other posting back to you, I will say that I think the only way to solve this problem is by enacting those state laws. I’ve said this over and over again.
Once they are in place, then this kind of thing can’t happen again. And once they are in place, Obama can’t run again...
That seems to be the best solution that I can see that will work...
LMAO, now that's a keeper.
You last ping to me was an excellent post.
It's a pleasure to read someones post stating their case in an eloquent non condescending manner, unlike some here who have OAKS (0bama Ass Kissing Syndrome)
There’s the thing. No executive order he signs is legally valid if this breaks. No bill he signs into law is either, I would surmise.
I think you may be right, but the issue is not really the place of birth. He admits his father was a Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth, which leaves him one parent short of natural born. I think he may try to pull a Chester Arthur.
BS
You’re late; it’s all been hashed out... LOL...
I would hate to catch any STDs. That’s a good one.
Only in your delusional mind.
Oh yes, the foundation of Freedom. Let a crook run for office and get elected, then let them server there term doing maximum harm to the Republic while you enact a law that is common sense for thinking people.
That’s not very conservative of you, nor is it American. I doubt Patrick Henry would have said’ “Aw lets make another law to stop them from killing freedom, or give me death!
If I missed telling you before, let me tell you now: DO NOT POST TO ME AGAIN!
Well, that was numbered post 270... :-)
[... ummm..., down the line a bit...]
You were saying — “Oh yes, the foundation of Freedom. Let a crook run for office and get elected, then let them server there term doing maximum harm to the Republic while you enact a law that is common sense for thinking people.”
Well..., you’ll notice that you (and others) — “let” — him run for office and get elected. Since you said this (above), the question could be raised to you and others, “Why did you let him run?”
You see..., there’s the “reality” of the situation, you let him run for office.
On the other hand, with the law in place that I’m talking about, if one does not produce the required documentation, then with this law I would not be letting him run. That’s the difference.
In the one case, you let him run — in the other case, with the law, I would not let him run.
—
And then you said — That’s not very conservative of you, nor is it American. I doubt Patrick Henry would have said’ “Aw lets make another law to stop them from killing freedom, or give me death!
Well, using your phraseology up above, it was not very conservative of you to have let him run for office, now was it?
And I think it’s very conservative of me to make it so he can’t run for office, if he does not produce the required paperwork.
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.