You don't accept the answer you got.
How does the birther’s stance differ in any practical way?
>They didn’t accept the answer they got.
>
>You don’t accept the answer you got.
>
>How does the birther’s stance differ in any practical way?
Begging your pardon, sir, that is incorrect.
We’ve not been given any answer; all we’ve gotten is the equivalent of “go away kid, you’re bothering me.”
I have never gotten an answer to the questions I have asked, nor has anybody. What we got was a “Go away. You don’t count.” That’s not an answer; that’s an EVASION, just as Justice Thomas said.
If they had done that to the Gore supporters what would America look like today? I asked that question of somebody else: if the courts had refused to take up Bush v Gore on the merits how would that election have ended?
When the legitimate means to decide issues FAILS, it is an invitation to what happened in Kenya: whoever torches the most churches wins.
Keep in mind that the guy whose campaign planned ahead-of-time to torch churches in order to force a spot for himself in the Kenyan government... received a million campaign dollars from Obama.
I am not joking or exaggerating in any way when I say that for me this issue is about the rule of law. If over half the country is saying WTF regarding the law-breaking that’s gone on concerning Obama’s eligibility, and if that and the illegality of actions by Congress can all be “evaded” by the legitimate means for us to petition the government for a redress of grievances, that means we no longer have the rule of law. Period. The only law we have is the law of the jungle, and you can look at Obama’s hero, Odinga, to see exactly what that means. Or you can look at the druglords that our own DOJ is making sure are able to come into the US to do their beheadings.
What is going on here is serious, serious doo-doo. Surely you have to see that.