THE NEXT BIG THING (liberal Media Matters hiring intern trolls)

bigjournalism.com ^ | Mar 4 2010 | Andrew Breitbart

[Mamzelle]

Please read about Breitbart's opening salvo against John Podesta and Media Matters.

This is not paranoia. Media Matters, a Soros outfit, is hiring "interns" to come on conservative forums and try to sow division, slow down momentum, forment confusion. And they are better at it than they used to be. They don't curse and swear like liberals on their own forums do.

[humblegunner]

That kind of behaviour ends discussion.

Human nature again.

If we were discussing cooking or cats, it would be different. Not very emotionally charged topics.

On the BC issue, one group strongly believes they are right, the other strongly thinks they are wrong.

What really sucks is when this simple DIFFERENCE OF OPINION causes the one group to villify the other.

Over a difference of opinion.

[BP2]

Figuratively speaking, I mean I have whomped them upside the head with Wong until the paper is falling apart. To pretty much no effect.

Parsy, as I told you after your EPIC FAIL last weekend:

"I asked you to demonstrate what you know and you did ... not a g*ddamn thing!"

Once again, have you actually read US v Wong Kim Ark?

You keep spouting the same misinformed rubbish bullet points over & over, and that's what gets us FReeper old timers pissed at noobies like yourself, EnderWiggins, and others. There IS a difference between a "difference of opinion" and purposeful contrarianism by outsiders designed to cause disruption on FR.

I know it's not in your talking points, but you may want to re-evaluate ANYTHING in the Opinion extracted from A.V. Dicey's 1896 version of "Conflict of Laws". Dicey later had a change of heart that validates Blackstone's Commentaries as it would have been interpreted by the Framers (excerpt at bottom of post).

Upon re-evaluation by the Roberts SCOTUS Court — probably as a result of a quo warranto Obama Eligibility lawsuit — various flawed lower court interpretations (and the Left's abuse of those interpretations) stemming from Justice Gray's 1898 discussion of "Natural Born Citizen" in US v Wong Kim Ark will very likely be overturned.

This would be very similar to when the 2008 DC v Heller case overturned NUMEROUS lower court opinions stemming from the badly-written 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS concerning 2nd Amendment rights. The SCOTUS must make Opinions as "interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."

Such a refinement of the source material used in US v Wong Kim Ark by today's Roberts SCOTUS would very much impact Obama's status as a British Subject:

[Las Vegas Ron]

You don’t discuss, you deliberately provoke.

[DJ MacWoW]

Thank you for the response!

What really sucks is when this simple DIFFERENCE OF OPINION causes the one group to villify the other.

Tempers do flare. But I believe the troll thing happens because there ARE some trolls. Outside influences can tear FR apart. Which is their point. It's easy to tell when it's newbies that only gravitate to the combustible threads. Unfortunately it's not always just newbies. There are posting names that have been dormant for years at a stretch. That's when it's gets touchy.

[Star Traveler]

Hey! That makes more sense than some of the other stuff I’ve read by the “MOM’s” crowd... :-)

[Star Traveler]

With you, that’s kinda like the pot calling the kettle black ... LOL ...

[Uncle Chip]

Was that a YES or a NO to my question??? or just another one of your dissembling dodges???

[parsifal]

That’s right. And its all Obama’s fault they act like this. Obama knew this was going to happen, and he just sat back and let it happen. I bet he is sitting up there in Washington right now ROTFLMAO about this.

I mean you see how far off the deep end the Truthers went, and it was forseeable that the birthers would do the same thing. Obama is a politician and all, but he is also the President and it is wrong of him to let this go on the way it has.

Obama has basically stirred up a Constitutional Crisis all so he could use these people to grab some extra votes.

parsy

[ansel12]

Nice trick, trying to put your own religious bigotries on other people in your service to Mitt Romney.

Out of the blue you tried to turn this thread into a Catholic versus Protestant argument in favor of Mormonism and Mitt Romney, this is a strategy that you have tried before, in fact it is becoming your trademark, or to quote you. "The best thing to be said about Mitt Romney is how the mere mention of his name will send the fundy bigots into an absolute hissy fit."

You came up with the strategy of attempting to pair Catholics with Mormons into an anti Protestant block, thereby coming at Romney service through a fresh angle.

To: Mamzelle
By my count, we already have:
1.The "We hate Mormons" gang.
2.The "We hate Catholics" gang.
3.The "There is no such thing as moderate Muslims" gang. And a few more embarassingly idiotic posters. I hope they are collecting their paycheck from Media Matters.

16 posted on Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33:11 AM by Vigilanteman

[parsifal]

Oh I wouldn’t doubt that it’s some of thems’ “job” to do this. Is George Soros behind it? Is he the one paying them to come on FR and cause all this dissension? Is this what media matters was talking about?

I’ve been saying for a while I think some of these people are from DU.

parsy, who still blames Obama for the Birther Movement

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Parsy, as I told you after your EPIC FAIL last weekend:

Ummmm... that's not the "EPIC FAIL" by any means....

The real "EPIC FAIL" is if it's as you say and so clear cut... then why is Obama still the President?

You see..., it's either an EPIC FAIL that Obama cleared all hurdles, without even one hiccup or anything from a court or the Supreme Court -- for something being "so clear cut" legally speaking -- or -- it's really not so clear cut after all... doncha know.

Most normal and average voters know that when you have a legal issue that is strongly disputed on opposing sides, that it will take a court to finally decide the issue one way or another.

And that's exactly the situation here... it will take the Supreme Court to weigh in on this particular issue as it pertains to a candidate being qualified per the Constitution if he is born on American soil but the parents (or parents, even) are not citizens of this country.

That's what you're gonna have to get the Supreme Court to decide, in the end...

[Star Traveler]

You were asking ...

Was that a YES or a NO to my question??? or just another one of your dissembling dodges???

Well, I'm sorry you couldn't figure it out from my post about the #2 part of this issue...

The #2 part is the natural born status of a candidate... and I was saying that you are not going to know.

That's because it's going to take the Supreme Court to finally decide the issue. All you're going to get is one bunch of lawyers saying it's "this" (one side of the natural born status) -- as the State of Hawaii did.

And then you're going to get another set of lawyers saying "that" (the other side of the natural born status) -- as you and some others are saying.

Bottom line, you'll never know for sure (what the "law of the land" is on this issue), until the Supreme Court decides it.

You can "assert" your position on it, but you're not going to "know" what is the final answer.

[BP2]

> Over a difference of opinion.

Well, there IS a delineation between a "difference of opinion" and purposeful contrarianism designed to cause disruption on FR.

If you dislike what those who question Obama's Eligibility (or anything else) have to say, the answer is easy:
SIMPLY DON'T CLICK "POST REPLY".

Trolls don't have to be smited ... they choose to be.

[parsifal]

Well, one thing I can say, is that I blame Obama for the Birther Movement. I don’t think any of you guys would be running around waving copies of Vattel if he had just freed the long form.

I think Obama was more interested in votes than he was doing what’s right. If he had coughed up his info when this first got started, all you guys wouldn’t be trying to re-write SCOTUS decisions and things.

parsy, who says Obama owns the Birther Movement! He started it! He can stop it! Free the Long Form!

[Uncle Chip]

Bottom line, you'll never know for sure (what the "law of the land" is on this issue), until the Supreme Court decides it.

So then we birthers are doing the right thing for everybody's assurance by pressing this issue into every court venue all the way up to the Supreme Court. Isn't that right???

Oh and BTW -- the Constitution, which includes Article II, is "the highest law of the land" -- not a Supreme Court decision.

[Star Traveler]

You were asking ...

So then we birthers are doing the right thing for everybody's assurance by pressing this issue into every court venue all the way up to the Supreme Court. Isn't that right???

Again the two parts... (1) the birth certificate issue, and (2) the natural born status...

I think that all candidates should show their birth certificates, but I also know you're not going to get a court to require that any candidate do this, because it's not legally required for any candidate to show their birth certificate.

And therefore I would advise all FReepers to work for the state law which makes it mandatory for all candidates to show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot.

So, there's that one part, with the birth certificate issue.

On the other part, (2) the natural born status, there should be some court case started in which that natural born status of a candidate would be argued and in which it would be heard by the Supreme Court. It needs to be a solid case without precedural errors, with the proper standing (whatever is required) and framed as a Constitutional issue in order to clear up the legal questions that both sides of the issue are arguing.

Now, either it can be constructed that way or it can't. I don't know. But, if it can be constructed as a good court case and make its way up the courts and finally be presented to the Supreme Court -- we still don't know if the Supreme Court will hear it.

I would hope they would, because I think it's a tremendous waste of energy and time for everyone to be arguing about it, when it could be settled once and for all with a Supreme Court decision.

Bottom line... just "get the court case" going that is solid... and follow it... and that's all that anyone has to do, simply report on the progress of the court case.

So, that's concerning the natural born status issue.

---

Oh and BTW -- the Constitution, which includes Article II, is "the highest law of the land" -- not a Supreme Court decision.

It's the law of the land, except when two opposing legal sides have different takes on what it says... :-)

And then, that's where you get the Supreme Court to come in and weigh in on it and settle it as far as which side has the right take on it -- if either one does and they may not. The Supreme Court may come up with something completely different that the wording of the law in the Constitution means.

And then, what the Supreme Court says about it -- then sticks and that's "it" for that issue.

The only other way that can be changed would be if the people come up with a Constitutional Amendment which would overturn what the Supreme Court said (and that can be done, too...).

[Las Vegas Ron]

Just nailing you as a provocateur;

Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:16:48 PM · 219 of 536
Star Traveler to pburgh01
You were saying ...

Trying to suspiciously create online Freeper friends who think like you to excoriate people who think differently than you, such as the negative nellies ganging up in a thread on a poster who does not share your doom and gloom view of things.
I think you just described some of the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” types here, who post on some of these birther threads... they love doing that... LOL...

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies

Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:24:59 PM · 222 of 536
Star Traveler to All
I figured it was just a “matter of time” before this thread turned into a “certifigate” thread and the “Obama Derangement Syndrome” types showed up here with their “brither” stuff....

It looks like a few have wandered in... I don’t know how much longer it will take for the “call” to go out to all of the rest of the deranged to show up... :-)

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies

Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:26:25 PM · 223 of 536
Star Traveler to Las Vegas Ron
Well..., my prediction is this thread turns into a birther thread in just a few minutes... LOL...

It always happens when one birther shows up... the rest of the howling dogs are around somewhere...

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies

Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:34:27 PM · 228 of 536
Star Traveler to Las Vegas Ron
It’s when the birthers arrive that it turns into a birther thread... I’m not one of those Obama Derangement Syndrome types, doncha know... :-)

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies

Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:41:48 PM · 235 of 536
Star Traveler to Las Vegas Ron
You were saying ...

You should ping Jim Robinson with that, he'd like to see the BC too.
I've been posting about seeing the birth certficate since before the election and then after the election, I've been posting regularly about how to get it.

And that's to get a state law making it a requirement that all candidates must show their birth certificate or else they cannot be on the ballot.

The difference between me and the other nuts of the Obama Derangement Syndrome crowd, is that I know what will work (and that law will) and what consists of hallucinations... and the Obama Derangement Syndrome types specialize in the hallucinations... LOL...

I've got something that will actually work... the nuts are simply crazy.... :-)

Oh..., and by the way, the intelligent legislators in some states are doing that very thing... unlike many of the Obama Derangement Syndrome types, who said (way back then) that this idea of going for that type of law was actually a “ruse” and anyone who suggested it here on Free Republic (getting that type of law enacted) was a troll... (that's how nutty some of these people are... LOL...).

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies

Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:17:39 PM · 261 of 536
Star Traveler to papertyger; Las Vegas Ron
The other FReeper, Las Vegas Ron, was saying ...

Thanks, we're working on it.
You know..., I suggested from the beginning that the way to do it was to pass a state law that made it mandatory to show a birth certificate or a candidate cannot be on the ballot in that state.

That would work.... for getting the birth certificate shown...

But, I could also tell that this “working on it” that these of the Obama Deragement Syndrome types were doing — was totally non-effective and would go nowhere (and I said so way back then and still do now... it will go nowhere...).

And thus, this idea of “we're working on it” will still be going on and they will still be “working on it” past the time that Obama does the ribbon cutting for his Presidential Library... LOL...

What will be effective would be to pass this state law that I've been talking about.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies

Same thing over and over and over, repetition, deception and ridicule, there's much more but I think everyone here can see what you are plain as day.

You are nowhere as clever or smart as you would like to think.

[Pan_Yan]

If you dislike what those who question Obama's Eligibility (or anything else) have to say, the answer is easy: SIMPLY DON'T CLICK "POST REPLY".

BP2 not clicking "Post Reply" when he disagrees with someone.

Aw, does your kitty hurt, pussy-cat?
Are we cramping your After-Birther troll style? Waaaaa

Take an Pamprin and stop your whining, p*ssyfal. There is no reasonable and TRUSTWORTHY foundation for you and all of the kneepad-wearing After-Birthers’ claim that Obama’s dubious FactCheck COLB is valid.

Most everyone here is just enjoying the warm feel of their self righteous indignation. There is a reason I avoided the birther threads just about all the time. I think I'll go find something more productive to do like read a nice thread about belly button lint.

[Star Traveler]

You can see a long list of my posts here saying all the same things I’ve said all along, from right after the election to now... so nothing new here... LOL...

Just because you don’t like what it is that I say doesn’t mean too much — other than you just don’t like it... :-)

You’ll notice that I’ve posted in response to you, to other posters... right on down the line... the funny thing about this is that you wouldn’t have gotten but a very few posts from me on this thread — except for the fact — that you and others posted to me... hoo-boy! that was the mistake that you made...

[parsifal]

ROTFLMAO! And that was one of the “mild” ones!

But seriously, I think we have to look at the Kingpin of the Birther Movement-—Obama.

If it wasn’t for Obama’s refusal to Free the Long Form, these people would not have jumped off the deep end like they have. Obama could have stopped this in its tracks.

He may not have had a “legal” obligation to provide more information, but he sure had a “moral” obligation to do so. Particularly when he became President. Obama has let this Birther stuff fester like an infected wound for well over a year now, and it is understandable that these people have just gotten angrier and angrier over time, having been ignored, until many of them have “snapped” in a way.

But their hearts were in the right place, whereas Obama’s heart was in a bad place. He needed some people to act crazy so he would look smart. That is shameful.

parsy, who blames Obama