Posted on 03/11/2009 5:10:54 PM PDT by KTM rider
A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
You said — “She apparently hasnt learned that lying is wrong.”
You would think the Obama Derangement Syndrome people would learn that one... :-)
Scalia was merely citing a fact regarding Supreme Court procedure. Any Justice can bring a case to conference, but to get a hearing before the High Court, a petitioner needs four of them to agree that the issues deserve a hearing. It relates to each and every case brought to the court.
Normally I avoid reading your comments, exactly the way I avoid stepping in dog excrement. But since you addressed me and I just posted on this thread, I am making an exception.
Here is my comment to you:
You are fooling no one.
When Alinsky or any other leftist (including the internet troll), advocates doublespeak, they are following the Machiavellian heritage. None of his followers, plentiful though they are in these times, has the manhood to speak openly in defense of his rotten ideas. This stands as a victory blow against them, all the more devastating because these pretenders are so dependent on language as their fortress.
But I would remind youdoublespeak is only needed because the agenda is weak to the core. Why would you follow an ideology that can only maintain its existence to the extent that it can masquerade as its opposite?
And what answer can the useful idiot give, with cowardice as your mother and stupidity your best friend?
You said — “You are fooling no one.”
Well, certainly I would say the same for the Obama Derangement Syndrome people. I don’t think they’re fooling anyone, just themselves. That’s why they’re called that by the conservative press and blogs.
It would be different if they were engaged in something that would *work* — like passing state laws which require the candidate to produce specific documentation. But, that seems to be something too rational... :-)
I don’t expect to change the minds of people who are cult members..., they don’t change. So, I imagine it will be a continual conversation until Obama breaks ground on his Presidential library.
In the meantime, *others* will be delighted to know that in addition to Arizona and Oklahoma putting this law into effect — Missouri has been added to the list.
Now, just imagine (I’m talking to the sane folks now...), how this will be if 20 states had that and Obama could not get the votes in those 20 states because he wouldn’t produce the required documentation! Now, that’s something substantial...
Are you writing schizophrenic poetry again?.... :-)
The story, as told by Ms. Taitz, indicates that she identified herself to Justice Scalia, as an attorney that had a case pending judicial review. There is NO WAY that I believe Scalia would speak to the woman, in any way and however vaguely, about that specific case. No way. I think that this is a clear indictment of Ms. Taitz's credibility.
The Canon of Ethics regarding Ex Parte communication is crystal clear. Justice Scalia would not commit a violation as overt as this, either intentionally or not.
Are you licensed to diagnose?
It doesn’t take a doctor to diagnose a fellow talking to an empty space next to him... LOL...
But if you’re not licensed that means you’ve been going way outside your area of expertise, in violation of Alinsky’s rules.
When I see someone walking down the street talking to himself and yelling at people, I don’t call the doctor for a diagnosis... LOL...
How many times are you allowed to disobey Obama’s hero Saul Alinsky?
Oh, you’ve been fired.
You said — “Oh, youve been fired.”
Who has been holding my checks all this time... LOL...
You really shouldn’t worry. There are other leftist organizations who are very likely to hire you.
I’ll be happy to provide a letter of recommendation.
I don’t think those groups you’re talking about will take letters from people to the left of them... :-)
That sure came out of nowhere.
Which of Alinsky’s rules did you get that from?
You said — “Which of Alinskys rules did you get that from?”
You’ve got the book not me... :-)
Now you’re getting defensive. Won’t that be just another giveaway?
You said — “Now youre getting defensive. Wont that be just another giveaway?”
—
Talk about defensive..., just look at your posts — and see the only person you’ve been posting to... :-)
Don’t tell me you’re gonna start stalking me now.
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.