How Mitt Romney’s Mexican-Born Father Was Eligible to be President

ABC News ^ | January 27, 2012 | Huma Khan

[James Thomas]

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, has been invoked on the campaign trail often.

Newt Gingrich used his release of 12 years’ of tax records as an example to push his rival to release his own tax returns. On Thursday night, Romney mentioned the fact that his father was born in Mexico in response to Gingrich’s allegations that he is “anti-immigrant,” which raises the question: If George Romney was born in Mexico, how could he run for president?

[Godebert]

Wow, your tactics are pure Alinsky. You've been trained by your obot masters well. Some of your tricks on this thread:

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

[philman_36]

Turning those tactics back on someone employing them is sweet as well. {;^)

[little jeremiah]

Fogbow 0bots such as yourself drool and shiver at Orly’s flaws, and Leo’s unusual interests apart from the legal. Your feeble (to put it mildly) “arguments” in the eligibility field are embarrassing. The only reason you and your fellow 0bots are not emabarrassed must be the psych meds your doctors prescribe; or the self-medications you imbibe.

You are so transparent in your efforts that your guts are showing.

[Harlan1196]

I take that to mean you cannot document Leo’s legal experience? Why am I not surprised that it means nothing to you - after all, he tells you what you want to hear.

[Harlan1196]

Do you agree that Leo has no documented legal experience prior to the eligibility stuff?

Yes or no.

Time to put up or shut up.

[Brown Deer]

Can’t prove a negative.

Is that why you can't prove any of your failed dreams?

Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.

I don't need to, because I've obviously already known quite a bit more than you for quite a while now. ;-)

What is he hiding?

What makes you think that he has anything to hide? He's always been quite open about his past.

[hedgetrimmer]

On this point, neither party has an interest in trying to uphold the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution.

Then it's up to us citizens, isn't it.

[Brown Deer]

Do you agree that Leo has no documented legal experience prior to the eligibility stuff?

NO!

Time to put up or shut up.

Still waiting...

[Harlan1196]

If he is open about his past and is not hiding anything then there must be nothing there to hide.

Why is it so hard to accept that Leo has no actual legal experience? It is not like it will make you change your mind about him - after all without him, the eligibility movement has no “intellectual” foundation.

[Brown Deer]

Why is it so hard to accept that Leo has no actual legal experience?

Because I know better. So why are you a pathological liar?

[Brown Deer]

the eligibility movement has no “intellectual” foundation.

Indeed, you are partially correct...

Harlan1196: "Did I miss something along the way - I was hoping and praying it was a done deal."

[Harlan1196]

Another word for things you “know” but can’t prove is fantasy.

I told the truth: there is no documentable proof that Leo has any legal experience that would make him an expert on Constitutional law. No court cases and no publications.

That is the truth - I challenge you to prove me wrong.

[Brown Deer]

I told the truth: there is no documentable proof that Leo has any legal experience that would make him an expert on Constitutional law. No court cases and no publications.

That is the truth - I challenge you to prove me wrong.

It's not up to us to prove you wrong. You made this statement and many other strange statements, yet have not backed up any of them with facts.

Nobody here is going to share any information with a lying troll that just signed up a couple weeks ago.

[Harlan1196]

You can’t be that dense.

How do I prove a negative? There are no facts to be found. No record what so ever. He is a legal cypher.

[Brown Deer]

There are no facts to be found.

At least, not by a dummy.

[philman_36]

Look closely at what is being said...

Play with the Google a little bit - you will find nothing.

With the combinations of "play with" and "the Google"...who says "the Google"? Sounds like lots of sexual innuendo there to me.
In other words he's saying...don't even bother masturbating as you've got no penis to begin with.
But, then again, I could be wrong.

Of course, denials will be forthcoming on the morrow. LOL

[Godebert]

Know your enemy......... and fight fire with fire.

[Godebert]

You attack the messenger because you are unable to defeat his message.

[philman_36]

Know your enemy......... and fight fire with fire.
I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.

[Harlan1196]

The courts have been doing a fine job defeating his message.

He has had his ass handed to him every time he walked into court - should tell you something his legal skills.