Shout at this, maybe you will have better luck.
Posted on 12/29/2011 4:22:24 PM PST by Smokeyblue
I don’t take it as personal. I take the childish nature of it and the personal venom that laces it as boring and boorish and totally devoid of logic.
You clearly are a female with some kind of Ann envy. I am simply someone who used to really like her work who has become disillusioned over the past couple of years. I don’t assume she is a “sell out” nor do I reject every single thing she says because I feel like she is totally wrong on Christie and now Romney.
Posters like you could never pass muster by the very standards you assign others. Thus, since you’ve no doubt been wrong before and since you’ve no doubt said or done something for money - I will now label you a sell out and I will reject everything you now say.
So don’t bother saying anything else to me. Just applying your standards to YOU.
I dunno if I’d go that far. Another McCain—definitely.
Shout at this, maybe you will have better luck.
I am talking about the NBC issue, not the Hawaii issue. Since we know that under your NBC interpretation, Obama does not qualify, then Roberts could not have sworn him in were Roberts in agreement with the NBC interpretation.
As for Scalia and the refusal to meet with Obama and Biden - could have been for a number of reasons. Were Scalia to accept your interpretation of the NBC, I would take due note of that. As I said, from my reading, and I’ve read the clauses numerous times, I could see either interpretation.
Rather, Newt's job and focus is to call out Zero for his incompetence and Saul Alinsky world view.
Newt will call Zero out for his anti-American world view and no one is better at showcasing Zero's core hatred for America than Newt. Bet Cheney enjoys watching Newt skewer the Libs, including Romney.
You idiot don't you know C. Edmund Wright has declared you a moron for talking about this?</sarcasm>
Same side, we are. Ann Coulter however.... has exposed her liberal bias.
In that link, Palin affirms the eligibility issue as worth pursuing:
“Speaking on Fox News, Palin explained that she approved of how Trump is “not just throwing stones, you know, from the sidelines. He’s digging in there. He’s paying for researchers to know why President Obama would have spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate.”
Palin went on to say that she believes Obama was born in Hawaii, but “obviously, if there’s something there that the president doesn’t want people to see on that birth certificate... Then he seems to go to great lengths to make sure it isn’t shown, and that’s kind of perplexing for a lot of people.”
The GOP leadership certainly knew what he was, otherwise they would not have done that stupid Sense Of The Senate nonsense.
Even worse if they didn't know, which means they are too stupid to breathe.
And where is Trump today?
If Perry filed that lawsuit, he’d immediately become a single issue candidate defined by this one issue and his candidacy would be dead, just like every other candidate who has done this.
As to your question about restoring the order of law to congress, you’re going to have to fight for it. Every candidate who doesn’t swear to uphold congress in all respects needs to be moved along and every representative, senator, and president from herein must be jealously watched to see if they are upholding their duties as they should be. Anybody who doesn’t gets swiftly moved along.
At some point, the Dems and Reps will tire of sending in insincere cannon fodder. They will start upholding it on their own, though they will always need to be watched.
But don’t despair, you’re winning even if you don’t realize it.
So, I'm back to this. Does anyone ALIVE that I've heard of agree with you? As I stated, from my personal readings, I could see it either way.
It is every American's duty to protect and defend the Constitution, but politicians and military members take an oath to do so.
Why would you want a president that has already demonstrated an unwillingness to defend the Constitution and the rule of law?
Explain yourself.
Newt has written and studied history. His answer about the hospital is insulting.
For Shame.
Actually, somebody posted a link to Palin’s comments regarding Trump’s “birtherism”, which was after her “it’s a distraction” comment. She said more power to Trump for paying for an investigation into why Obama would spend $2 million to hide his birth certificate. Which tells me that she’s at least familiar with the history - more than any of the others would ever acknowledge.
Ultimately, what I’m looking for in a candidate isn’t really about the eligibility issue or any single issue. It’s about whether they have the guts and will-power to take on the media and the establishment and actually address the untouchable issues.
The proper answer for anybody to give regarding eligibility, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, or any other number of issues is, “We need to get to the bottom of this and make sure that the rule of law and justice are served.”
If they do it on something that gets them a little media grief they show a little bit of strength. If they do it on eligibility they show Herculean strength, which is what we need right now.
It’s never just about Obama, or just about eligibility. It’s about the whole picture. And the whole picture - as I’ve seen first-hand on the eligibility issue and others have seen first-hand on Fast and Furious, etc - is that our entire government and media are lawless, unaccountable, treasonous blood-suckers feeding off of what used to be a living, vibrant nation. We cannot survive this. If we can’t get somebody strong enough to throw off this python winding around our necks we will be dead before most the country even knows what hit them.
That’s what this is about. Newt just showed me he has little strength for the enormous task ahead. Because he cares too much what his cronies and the media think of him.
Why don’t you quote someone anyone’s ever heard of or anyone who is still alive? My point is this: there are quotes, decisions, rulings etc that lead me to both conclusions. I was just quickly pulling something out to demonstrate that.
You are clearly obsessed with this and have a ream of obscure publications with obscure people who support your case. You are clearly losing the argument in the real world of today. I’ve told you I am split both ways, but you’re losing the war of relevant opinion today.
Besides, it is Obama’s communism and not his naturalism that really concerns me.
Well said.
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.