[Tex-Con-Man]

Serrano clearly states he's been questioning the justices about his eligibility for 10 years...Sheesh...I even highlighted it in red. And he said it in 2008. That would make it 1998...Kinda predates Obama doncha think?

This is an example of why I seldom try to reason with birthers anymore. They refuse to acknowledge reality.

[edge919]

Serrano clearly states he's been questioning the justices about his eligibility for 10 years...Sheesh...I even highlighted it in red.

Yet you didn't actually present anything older than a few years ago. There's no way to know if it was a literal comment or an exaggeration, although it doesn't matter.

Kinda predates Obama doncha think?

It doesn't matter. Serrano wasn't the one who said it was being evaded. That's why I asked for comments to see how it was being responded to. Remember?? I said, "let's see where it was used before and see if it was treated the same way."

You've made an assumption about Clarence Thomas's comment that doesn't make sense outside of the context of Obama's eligibility being challenged (along with McCain's ... which Serrano specifically referenced). At best you've shown Justice Kennedy saying something about Serrano's presidential ambitions subsiding, but this doesn't negate Clarence Thomas comments from being influenced by the eligibility lawsuits.

This is an example of why I seldom try to reason with birthers anymore. They refuse to acknowledge reality.

Labeling people as "birthers" is not how one acknowledges reality. You would save yourself a lot of embarrassment by simply not posing on this issue, since you can't back up your claims. t negate Clarence Thomas comments from being influenced by the eligibility lawsuits.