Posted on 12/06/2008 9:43:49 PM PST by pissant
Good, because empirical evidence is demonstrable. So demonstrate it.
Here’s a hint: You won’t be able to, because the evidence you cite is not empirical, and also because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Gee, you’re fun to argue with. Keep coming back.
The fact that high profile talkers and bloggers are avoiding this issue is more of a testament to their weakness and utter hypocrisy, in my opinion than anything else.
You can read through these threads, and although there is a measure of speculation, there is an equal, if not greater measure of reasoned thought, intelligent deduction, presentation of facts, citing of case law and constitutional references, research results, and impassioned patriotic oratory.
There is far too much occurring right in front of our faces, to overlook this issue. This is not a witch hunt, or a sore looser fest, or even a right wing psychotic break. If that were the case, the posts here would be verging on the insane. But they're not.
There is an overwhelming amount of probable cause in this issue. More than enough to warrant our concern and our interest, and yes, even some outrage.
So, where are all of the big talkers and bloggers? Why haven't they looked at this issue closely enough to see that they at least need to be asking some basic questions?
Are they getting all of their information from the MSM? If not the MSM, then where? It certainly can't be the same sources the rest of us are using. If they saw what we're seeing, they'd be on this case day and night, but they're not.
That's a very bad indicator in my book. Very bad. There's entirely too much going on here for any reasonable and honest person to ignore.
As of this week, none of the talkers have my ear any longer. They can talk to Democrats for all I care. The bloggers? As of this week, I've deleted all of their bookmarks.
In the face of an actual threat to our constitutional form of government, every single one of these people folded. They've lost my trust as a result.
Well, I happen to think that McCain was much more straightforward in his actions than Obama. Obama routinely broke promises and lied whenever it was in his political interest to do so.
But I'm trying to analyze this from a political perspective. And as I've explained in my previous posts, I think Obama's actions could easily be the same whether he was born in Hawaii (and has an original birth certificate to that effect) or not.
I see very little political advantage for him in trying to further prove that he's a natural born citizen. He'll never satisfy his most vociferous critics, and he doesn't have to worry about the vast majority of the general public. If he just continues to do nothing, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, he'll be sworn in as President, and most people will treat the matter as tin-foil-hat territory.
From your point of view it may stink, but Obama doesn't care about your point of view.
I don’t give a feces what Horowitz calls it. Comparing this to the 2000 election is totally specious
***Specious feces, an expression that could only come from EEE.
Like the others you have no logical argument so you just shake the Truther Doll and say we are being like DailyKos, DU, or Andrew Sullivan.
Actually, American parents engaged in National Service. If his dad wasn't on duty in the Navy, He'd probably be a citizen of whatever real estate he was born on. A reverse anchor baby. Active duty military don't have the choice, so they have exception.
Well, aren’t you going to respond to any of the replies to you? You’ve been a Freeper for a long time. What I just saw was a classic fast freeper education. You should be grateful.
64 million people can’t just overrule the constitution’s eligibility requirements
A phony affidavit is perjury anywhere in the US. Colmes is just Colmes.
“64 million people can’t just overrule the constitution’s eligibility requirements”
According to all too many so-called conservatives it can. Horowitz is a fool if he thinks this is a precedent that won’t come back to haunt everyone.
That doesn't sound accurate to me. Obama spoke of traveling to Pakistan with friends in 1981. Many people have asked questions about that passport, and what data might be contained on it.
One of the curiouser items of note, is that from the time he returned from Pakistan in '81, he didn't travel outside the boundaries of the continental US until he received his US diplomatic passport (upon becoming a Senator). In fact, he had been criticized for that very thing before making his trip to Kenya in 2004(?).
That fact lends credence to the speculation that he may not have wanted to create a paper trail which could have revealed information on the earlier passport.
The fact that no person of consequence on the right has picked up the ball on this is more a reflection of the details than anything else.
***I gather Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is not a person of consequence to you.
It will be more viable than ever. The Constitution wouldn't exist if this country operated on pure democratic rule. The founders understood that this country needed a structured political system to avoid chaotic transfers of power from one administration to the next. There are rules for elections and those rules are crafted to avoid hostile takeovers from foreign sources. Otherwise, we would have no need for Supreme Court justices or the Electoral College. There is no Constitutional guarantee that a majority of voters wouldn't be fooled by a usurper but there is a system to rectify the problem if the majority makes a mistake.
“Obama spoke of traveling to Pakistan with friends in 1981. Many people have asked questions about that passport, and what data might be contained on it.”
I believe some people are speculating that he travelled on an Indonesian or passport.
If it doesn't get answered, they can call me whatever they want... I'm not shutting up. Not about this. Not about the borders. Not about Christmas. Not about guns. Not about ... you get the idea!
He said it, I heard him say it too. Then he snickered.
If Americans toss this section of the constitution as not worth enforcing due to the threat of the mob, what else will be jettisoned the next time?
***Slavery. That would be ironic, with a black president in office. Hey, it’s just a piece of paper.
“We lost. Get used to it. We lost for all the right reasons.”
who is we? republicans don’t just lose...the whole country loses if we accept someone that may be disqualified by our constitution.
America has been through civil war and so much crap but it deserves to go the way of the Roman Empire because of a little pork and freddie mac?
-PJ
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.