What do you guys think?
*
I think those documents are going to disappear so you’d better save and distribute copies.
The Snopes’ leftards are close-by in Santa Monica. Wiki pretty much stole their thunder.
I think alot of people know.
And I think he flubbed the Oath of Office intentionally, both he and Roberts knowing he’s ineligible.
Barack Hussein Obama is Chief Executive Officer of the United States, Inc.
Good Work!
Snopes is for dopes.
I’ve never trusted Snopes. I heard long ago that it was owned by a left wing couple.
I don't know, it wouldn't suprise me if it were, knowing the unsavory characters involved.
But on a point of procedure, I think that posting a random anonymous spam email as "News" rather than in "Chat" or "Bloggers" is being a bit credulous. Do you believe everything you read in anonymous spam emails? :)
> Email | Unknown | Unknown
Understand, I'm not saying it's false, or true, or something else. I don't know. I'm just saying, apply some old fashioned FreeRepublic skepticism before getting too worked up. :)
These days, the truth is whatever the hell you want it to be.
No, not true. Go read the court dockets for yourself. None deal Obama’s eligibility.
Now, this does not discount that the nomination could have been payback for something, but this is not evidence of it.
Oh, wait.. WND scrubbed that article from their website and replaced it with: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=187797
Where they say: “Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report. “
You're better off worrying about Kagan's ties to Obamacare.
I recall researching Snopes trashing a critic of Obamacare, Dr. Dave Janda.
Their sole source at that time was a graphic designer who bloggs and became a medical expert through research.
His blogg contained lots of contumely and cute comments like
* What shall I call the doctors comments, "essay? writing? screed?)"
* The doctor's résumé: "True, in the way that most résumés are true."
* After first section of the doctor's comments: "False, and poorly written to boot."
* After the next section: "Non-sequiturs and hyperbole are signs of weak writing. So far this is shaping up to be a pretty poor essay."
..more
* "A red herring at best, an intentionally misleading lie at worst . . . almost-incoherent . . . wild, terrible lies"
and lots and lots more of the blogger's contempt and contumely because he wrote, "I'll be damned if I'm going to let people like [Dr. Janda] screw up necessary reform by lying."
(In fairness the blogger did permit critical comments from readers of his blog.)
That's how Snopes works?! I realized.
Today a cursory search of Snopes found what appears to be linking to wiki Answers.com. If the original link to the "medical expert" still exists I did not see it and I did not make an effort to track down the blogger/graphic designer/medical expert link.
Answers.com? Now another (Soros?) Snopes-like wiki-graffiti group is the defender against people who do not worship Soros' puppet Obama? IMO.
I’m bothered that the source of this information is “unknown”.
Outstanding detective work.
Snopes has been on my This-Smells-Really-Bad on my truth detection equipment for years, as I looked at these two old commies’ (oops I meant “progressives”) bullsh*t & deceit.
Today, I had a lefty whine that he is tired of hearing about how George Soros is satan, while Dick Cheney is obviously the evil one.
I strongly correct him, although it is like preaching to a dumb chicken.
A bit Greek to me. What’s a “docket file”? A description of the case? Wouldn’t all the judges get a copy of the exact same thing?
Snopes has always been for fools.