Posted on 03/11/2009 5:10:54 PM PDT by KTM rider
You said to Michael Michael:
[ ... but thats because youre really an Obot, doncha know... :-) ,,, ]
And your post verbatim below:
----------------------------------------------
To: Michael Michael
Well..., all of what you said very true, unfortunately...
[ ... but thats because youre really an Obot, doncha know... :-) ,,, ]
------------
You said — “He said, Get crazy on them ....
—
Whew, for a minute there, I thought you were referring to me as crazy... LOL...
But, then, I saw you were referring to that lawyer as “crazy”... , now I feel better... :-)
Yep, that sounds just like a typical “Obama Derangement Syndrome” thread, all right...
LOL...
The only thing that is missing from that one — are the “tanks surrounding the White House” to get rid of Obama — or the “Marshal walking into the White House, with a court order, and handcuffing Obama and walking him out... “ LOL..
I mean..., now..., *those* are definitely deranged sentiments, if I’ve ever heard of one...
—
But, of course, you miss my “practical solutions” don’t you? You should pay attention to the saner posters around here and follow their advice. It’ll be something that *actually works* for a change.
You know... the idea that I’ve been promoting for all conservatives — to get their states to enact laws that will require a candidate to produce specific documentation to prove he is eligible. Now, *that* is something that will *work* for a change and is not *deranged*.... :-)
By the way, I’ve been saying that there have been two states that are enacting those laws, Oklahoma and Arizona — and that I’m working with the Oklahoma legislature for my state — but — another one has been added — Missouri...
So, *get with it* for your state and do something sane for a change..., and *really* get rid of Obama... :-)
But don’t you know what happened to Michael Michael?
I guess I have to repeat myself for the slow... :-)
I don’t pay attention to who I’m posting to, I just post to interesting comments that strike my fancy. And with the Obama Derangement Syndrome threads, it’s like “shooting fish in a barrel” — they’re so funny and hilarious....
That name still sounds like a hiccup to me....
I thought you would know. You even called him out as a troll and all...you were soooo right!
Oh come on, you must look up at the "To:" box to see who you're posting your comments to...at least some times?
Poor, loquacious Michael Michael is no longer with us:
--------------
To: Michael Michael
Say bye-bye, Obama buttboy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2201077/posts?page=488#488 ---------------------------
Poor Michael Michael suffered from Obama Sycophant Syndrome. You know it can be very contagious with certain people.
You said — “Oh come on, you must look up at the “To:” box to see who you’re posting your comments to...at least some times?”
Oh..., no..., I do look at the “to” box; it’s just that I don’t keep track of it. Usually, I’ll look at the “to” box to see if I should be including some other names, as a matter of courtesy, who have replied to it, earlier in the conversation. And I look at it to make sure I haven’t made some stupid mistake like posting to myself, which I’ve done a time or two... LOL...
Past that, no..., it’s just interesting comments that I see....
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you said — “Poor, loquacious Michael Michael is no longer with us:”
—
Well, heck! I wouldn’t doubt it. Y’all over in the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” threads don’t like to “discuss things” — y’all only like to get people banned, as a “methodology” for discussion... LOL..
I should know that because of several times that people kept wanting to ban me... :-)
It just goes to show you, that it’s definitely a “cult” and if you’re not a member, then they want to “excommunicate” you....
What a deal!
I believe that Thomas favors trying Obama for not being a natural born citizen.
Poor, loquacious Michael Michael is no longer with us
Oh dear. What a shame.
The other day we heard from a Freeper whose “reliable source” claimed that it was Scalia himself who was opposed to a hearing since it is “the voters” who vet the candidates, or some such foolishness.
I am inclined to go along with many others that it may in fact be Roberts. Having read Thomas's book and that which I have gathered about Alito, Roberts may be the weak link in this one....
My point was that we’ll never know the answer to the question...knowing which justices vote which way is as speculative as Zer0’s birthplace.
And I share your admiration for Scalia...he is one in 100,000,000.
Forget about “weird” for a moment.
Do you think it took more than a small amount of courage to approach a supreme court justice in the way Dr. Taitz did, and to ask the questions she asked?
I’ll judge your sincerity by your answer.
You asked — “Do you think it took more than a small amount of courage to approach a supreme court justice in the way Dr. Taitz did, and to ask the questions she asked?”
Well..., in seeing what this lawyer did with money being collected through PayPal, I have that as a “background” for my answer here.
I would say that this lawyer exhibits quite a bit of ignorance and naivete... And sometimes people may mistake naivete and ignorance for “courage”...
That’s what I think...
So she’s both greedy and naive?
This fits the pattern of a fabricated answer.
Not only do you provide two separate answers, either of which would suffice, but they are incompatible with each other. As such, the probability that you are not being honest is above 90%.
Your credibility is officially down to 10%.
You said — “So shes both greedy and naive?”
—
I’m not sure where the word “greedy” came from. Maybe someone else said that. I don’t recall a single instance in which I said that. Perhaps I did and I was “sleep-typing” (but no, not really, I didn’t say that...).
Yes, I do think she is naive and also somewhat ignorant, considering the fiasco on PayPal. That’s just not a professional lawyer-type to me...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you said — “Not only do you provide two separate answers, either of which would suffice, but they are incompatible with each other. As such, the probability that you are not being honest is above 90%.”
—
Well, the two separate answers that you’re referring to — one of them I have no idea where you’ve come up with it. So, you’re suffering under some delusion right there.
But, in addressing the two answers that I did give — naive and ignorant — yes, I think they do complement one another...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly you said — “Your credibility is officially down to 10%.”
—
Well, if you were in charge of the “Credibility Accreditation Board” — then I might have something to be concerned about. But, considering that this is only *you* — nothing new here... LOL...
I misunderstood your reference to her handling of money.
But you are a bit over-defensive. Such feelings of inadequacy are often compounded when the victim is not removed from the offending environment.
You see, your problem is you’ve picked an agenda and your only criteria for methods of advancing it is whether such methods can be typed on a keyboard and posted on the internet. Thus truth is sacrificed.
This is what Alinsky wanted, and what Machiavelli wanted. But such things are not without cost.
It’s taking its toll on you.
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.