You said — “That’s because you’ve been pegged as a troll. I don’t call everyone who disagrees with me a troll. Just the trolls. There’s a difference between an honorable disagreement and the standard issue-specific troll.”
Pegged as a troll specifically because one disagrees with you, on this specific subject of the Obama qualifications (per the Constitution) and thinks that you’re getting nowhere on it and thinks that you’re spinning your wheels, and thinks that Obama has gotten through all this because there is a big loophole in the system that has allowed him to do so — and — you don’t like the disagreement. There’s no other way around it... :-)
And, you don’t like it that you have no proof that Obama is in violation of the Constitutional requirements and that you have found no way to get the courts to side with your viewpoint on the issue.
Furthermore, you don’t like the rationale that since President Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution and has the power of any investigation (and one went on with Obama’s passport being accessed), and that President Bush is in that position to *know* about Obama’s Constitutional qualifications — and that — President Bush has decided *not to prosecute* Obama, through the Justice Department, because no such violation exists in the first place.
All those reasons — in other words — the *content* of the disagreement with you — you don’t like — so that means anyone in that category of disagreement with you is a “troll” — from your perspective.
It should be so, so obvious to people by now... LOL...
—
On the other hand, I support blocking Obama from running full bore through this loophole again — by passing state laws to prevent it from happening. That’s a *real world* solution that goes beyond griping and complaining and calling people trolls.
At least I’ll be supporting the Oklahoma law which will *stop* Obama in the future, instead of going through endless *conspiracies* like you are...
Pegged as a troll specifically because one disagrees with you,
***No, NO, and NO. It’s not about you disagreeing with us. It’s about HOW you disagree, the standard obamanoid arguments you pull from your quiver, how you hide from the compelling arguments against your belief rather than honorably address them, and finally, how freeping annoying you are. You’re pegged as a troll because you’re acting like a jerk.
on this specific subject of the Obama qualifications (per the Constitution) and thinks that you’re getting nowhere on it and thinks that you’re spinning your wheels, and thinks that Obama has gotten through all this because there is a big loophole in the system that has allowed him to do so — and — you don’t like the disagreement. There’s no other way around it... :-)
***Nope. See above.
And, you don’t like it that you have no proof that Obama is in violation of the Constitutional requirements
***Absolutely. I don’t like it. But for you trolls to keep pushing the goal posts and demanding proof where there is none or where we have no authority to pursue it is completely disingenuous — it is being a troll.
and that you have found no way to get the courts to side with your viewpoint on the issue.
***heck yah I don’t like it but I’m in the fight for this constitution and you ain’t. What are you doing on this constitutionalist website trying to disrupt and dismay constitutionalists over this constitutional issue? You’re just bein’ a troll, that’s what.
Furthermore, you don’t like the rationale that since President Bush is sworn to uphold the Constitution and has the power of any investigation (and one went on with Obama’s passport being accessed), and that President Bush is in that position to *know* about Obama’s Constitutional qualifications — and that — President Bush has decided *not to prosecute* Obama, through the Justice Department, because no such violation exists in the first place.
***Well, this is the first time I’ve discussed it with you. And you’re busy telling me what I like and don’t like, which is putting words on my keyboard and acting like a troll. At this point I don’t really feel like discussing this artificial construct other than to point out that your statement, “because no such violation exists in the first place” is a conclusion that YOU draw, it has no basis of support in reality.
All those reasons — in other words — the *content* of the disagreement with you — you don’t like — so that means anyone in that category of disagreement with you is a “troll” — from your perspective.
***Nope. It ain’t the content. It’s the HOW. But trolls like you won’t understand that.
It should be so, so obvious to people by now... LOL...
***I agree, and I will leave it to lurkers to draw their own conclusions. You can’t even post one simple thing to me without a logical fallacy or attempted mind reading or some other bovine scatology.
On the other hand, I support blocking Obama from running full bore through this loophole again — by passing state laws to prevent it from happening.
***Go ahead and do that. I support that as well. See ya.
That’s a *real world* solution that goes beyond griping and complaining and calling people trolls.
***Then do it, and quit griping and complaining and shooting constitutional conservatives in the back at the height of a constitutional battle.
At least I’ll be supporting the Oklahoma law which will *stop* Obama in the future,
***I support that also. But I don’t support it in exclusion to other efforts taking place. That’s one of the fallacies you’re engaging in, thinking that one effort is mutually exclusive of another.
instead of going through endless *conspiracies* like you are...
***Bull shiite. The fact you’re even spending time on threads like this shows your interest is in trolling rather than working on your pet project. Go work on it. Leave us alone on ours.