What you guys do is attack the whole eligibility issue by attacking Taitz. Taitz rambled some speaking with PSMNBC one time and got branded, She may not be the best lawyer out there but she is persistent. Your ping list is full of After-Birthers. And a few inaccuracies from our side does not prove that Obama is a natural born citizen.
damages the credibility of FR by making all of us look like insane, conspiracy theorists and racist hate mongers.
Oh please with your nonsense. Don't believe the MSNBC and their allies race baiter's sing song. Race has nothing to do with the eligibility issue. The issue is about Obama being an usurper, and to make matters worst and dire for the country, he is a Marxist to boot.
It’s perfectly acceptable to believe that Obama was ineligible to the office.
So what do you believe?
It’s perfectly acceptable to argue that position from a logical and well-thought out perspective.
Which the issue of Obama not being eligible as president has been over the last 2 years.
Drew68’s son is seven months old. His wife probably carried her son for nine months. That’s 16 months total. You believe his sole motivation is the natural born citizenship of his son, right?
It is a motive. Drew68 brought it up that he wants his son to be a natural born citizen, whether it is "his sole motive" we just don't know. I do know however, that trolling these eligibility threads for over a year which seems to be on a daily basis makes people wonder about his motivations.
What isn’t acceptable is turning on fellow freepers and conservatives simply because you disagree on one issue.
What is acceptable is pointing out to how silly and weak their arguments are week after week, day after day, and their total disregard to large and mounting evidence against Obama.
Many of the freepers on the Sanity Squad have been freepers since ‘97 and ‘98 - longer than most birthers.
Sanity Squad? So the rest of us are insane? LoL. Some of those after-birthers have been zotted see steve-b.
To attack another freeper’s motivations without credible evidence proves that your arguments aren’t strong enough to allow any debate. Just like liberals, you belittle those who might shine a light on the flaws in your arguments. You should welcome the opportunity to prove your case.
Credible evidence? Your side's evidence is as weak as a wet noodle. I'll post a long list of evidence that says Obama is an usurper right after I get done with this post. I get blunt sometimes with knuckleheads who need a spanking because they just drone on spouting the Obot Obama line everyday in some way at BS'ing or at least misleading and mitigating the overwhelming evidence against Obama.
You should welcome the opportunity to prove your case.
I do and many others do on a constant basis on FR. However, the opposition have come nowhere close, light years away, to even matching the evidence against Obama who is purported to be natural born citizen.
We make fun of Orly Taitz because she's a ridiculous, incompetent, attention whore. When we discuss the credibility of the eligibility issue itself, we leave Orly Taitz out of it and match your arguments point for point.
So what do you believe?
Asked and answered, multiple times. I believe Obama is ineligible based on his dual citizenship at birth. I believe Obama was born in Hawaii not Kenya. I believe his is the sitting POTUS because Congress certified the majority vote of the Electoral College without registering any objections and because he was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. I believe we aren't going to get him removed from office on this issue.
I do know however, that trolling these eligibility threads for over a year which seems to be on a daily basis makes people wonder about his motivations.
One could make the same argument about birthers. Y'all troll the eligibility threads daily. What's the difference? We're all freepers who are interested in the same subject but have different opinions on it. Should eligibility threads be treated like religious threads?
What is acceptable is pointing out to how silly and weak their arguments are week after week, day after day, ...
Likewise.
Sanity Squad? So the rest of us are insane? LoL. Some of those after-birthers have been zotted see steve-b.
When one perpetuates demonstrably false Internet rumors over and over and over after receiving accurate information, yes, that makes one somewhat insane. steve-b wasn't on my list.
Credible evidence? Your side's evidence is as weak as a wet noodle.
My side?
Your ping list is full of After-Birthers.
If you only knew who's on my ping list ... you haven't the slightest idea. You know only those names that I allow you to see.
I do and many others do on a constant basis on FR.
Then stop calling fellow conservative freepers trolls and questioning their patriotism and leave the discussion to logic and reason.
Copying Seizethecarp’s interesting comment just for the record.
To: Mr Rogers; Red Steel; little jeremiah; LucyT; BP2; rxsid; El Gato
“They claim Obama is ineligible for office because of his father - yet it was all known, and that argument rejected by the states, voters, McCain, the GOP, Sarah Palin, Coulter, Malkin, Rush, the Electoral College, Congress and ignored by the Supreme Court.”
I disagree. Failure to properly define and address an issue in a timely manner after full discovery of the facts (such as Obama’s intentionally withheld HI contemporaneous vital records and access to witnesses in Kenya and HI) does not equate to “that argument rejected by...”
Let me refer you to the following FR link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2504335/posts?q=1&;page=1
At this link are links to four youtube videos by Dr. Ronald Polland in which he shows an extensive collection of webshots of news stories during the 2008 campaign.
The clear evidence from these webshots is that the Obama campaign and their MSM Factcheck and Politifact enablers successfully conducted a black propaganda psyops disinformation campaign against the US electorate which framed McCain’s NBC status as a BIG ISSUE and Obama’s NBC status as a NON-ISSUE (his precious “historic” candidacy was too good to check).
Obama may not have been a constitutional scholar but he and his campaign had years to get the jump on the media and opposition with claims that Wong Kim Ark was on-point with Obama’s public biography and was settled law.
The WKA ruling is not at all on point with Obama’s alleged bio and the ruling explicitly declines to define NBC, a statement likely inserted to refute the claim in the dissent that Wong was being made eligible to be president.
I am a little surprised that you have claimed to be amused by my suggestion that your posting pattern could raise suspicions. I am assuming that you are fully familiar with Army as well as CIA psyops.
“Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
It has doubtless not escaped the attention of the Obama Admin. and DOD that troop morale is lower than desired and approval of Obama and confidence in his legitimacy is also slipping as the Afghanistan push approaches.
It is illegal for the Army and CIA to conduct psyops against US citizens except in cases of “emergency.” But the skill-set and experience in applying these political manipulation techniques is there in the Army and CIA personnel. At a minimum, when those personnel retire or are not actively deployed, their skills could be solicited and employed by non-government entities to manipulate target portions of the US public.
Entities who could be hiring retired or non-active psyops-trained Army/CIA personnel could be cut-outs with plausible deniablility to US govenment entities or funded by parties with specific agendas. These agendas could be political or economic.
Of concern to me are advisers close to Obama who have declared that “conspiracy theories” should be actively suppressed in the media and on the internet blogs using paid operatives to post comments refuting what the government determines to be conspiracy theories. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that bloggers and commenters who investigate theories and share them have even been targeted with trojan viruses to cripple their computers in a kind of internet sniper attack.
WKA has been the linchpin of what I consider to be the psyops campaign by Obama’s team and if the DOJ/DIA felt that protecting Obama’s legitimacy for the troops was an emergency, then protecting WKA becomes a fight to the death.
LTC Lankin’s act of conscience may have generated an underground wave of support in active duty troops both in internet buzz and financial contributions that the WH/DOJ/DOD may be monitoring.
It is not hard to anticipate that a psyops operation might have been launched to post comments on sites where Lakin has some support, such as FR. An operative with prior posting history would be perfect.
The psyops operatives would post comments that would attempt to mock Lakin by claiming that WKA is settled law and validates Obama’s legitimacy because SCOTUS and the political establishment could have contested Obama’s NBC status, but didn’t.
The psyops operative would attempt to delegitimize Lakin by accusing him of dishonorably attempting to avoid deployment.
Of course, this may have nothing to do with you.
420 posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:06:21 PM by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies | Report Abuse]