Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.
When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????
Barack Obama is a pathological liar who was born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961.
No statement ever uttered by the pathological liar Barack Obama has any bearing on his natural born citizenship.
It is the verbal and written statements of two Governors of Hawaii, two Directors of the Hawaii Department of Health, statements of the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics and the statements of scores of state and federal judges that are determinative relative to pathological liar Obama’s Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
Pathological liar Obama was too young to have any firsthand knowledge of the circumstances of his own birth so any lie that he tells or true statement that he makes about those circumstances is hearsay.
No person posting in this thread has used any statement of the pathological liar Barack Obama to make a point.
He had such foresight. Much like I'm told the Framers knew to object to Chinese women getting pregnant, hopping on a boat, and sailing across the Pacific and around Cape Horn so they could have their baby in the U.S.
Fantasywriter might want to look into the fact that there is a state park in Illinois called “Lincoln Log Cabin Historic Site” and Abraham Lincoln NEVER LIVED at that site or in that cabin.
I’m sure its a conspiracy of the Chicago Obama mafia.
I don’t know how closely your time constraints allowed you to follow this thread. With all the waste-of-time word-walls, it’s easy to miss details.
Here is one I hope you caught, if only for humor’s sake. Our retired attorney/reigning king of word-walls explained how long-dead, moldering corpses can give real-time testimony. It’s so simple, really. The attorney merely decides what testimony the corpses could give that would most help his case, and then he posits that this is exactly the testimony the corpses *would* give, if only they were not desiccated, six-feet-under skeletons.
This is beyond words, isn’t it? It’s the old, do you laugh, cry, or just shake your head.
As I said, words fail.
The post about Lincoln came from "HandyDandy." Unless I missed one, I don't see FW talking about that.
But Lincoln Logs were cool. Or as we used to say around the neighborhood: "Real boys don't use Legos."
It's certainly beyond any words I used, as NO WHERE did I talk about "testimony from corpses." Coming right on the heels of my last point about strawman mischaracerizations being the sign of the intellectually dishonest person, this is funny.
What I SAID was that Maraniss's account is incomplete due to his not having available several of the historical witnesses who would have had the most direct, first-hand knowledge. And that had those witness been alive (living testimony), we have reason to know what they likely would have told Maraniss since we know things they said and did while they were alive.
Got it now?
But moving back to prior discussion. I noted:
I've pointed out to you before that you've got no evidence of a pregnant S.A. anywhere . So that means either (1) she didn't give birth at all (which you're not claiming) or (2) it's quite possible to carry a pregnancy to term and have no extant witnesses to that 50 years later (which shoots down your supposed "point."). You had no answer to this logical deconstruction of your argument before; you have no answer now.
It's amusing how both you and DL act like you're so clever in ignoring the hard questions posed about your stupid positions.
But speaking of stupid positions, maybe you can help him out on one of his latest. See if you can find A SINGLE INSTANCE where a presidential candidate was asked to submit a church/baptismal record to establish his Article II eligibility. DL is claiming the Constitution inherently demands such proof and that birth certificates are the new church records. Certainly, if his suppositions are true, then we should find where those original Constitutionalists recognized this inherent requirement and responded with the "obvious" request for church records.
Try to help. Because if anyone is in need of help, he is.
Oops; I thought you said you didn’t post to me unless I posted to you. And iirc, there was a whiney list of reasons for your lofty protocol.
News flash: I didn’t post to you.
Looks like you need to, ahem, clarify some truth. Lol.
2. You're talking directly about me (and not in a polite way). The protocol never entailed ignoring posts you make about me. (That should be obvious) I'm told there is a general practice on FR to ping a person when speaking about him/her. Both you and DL habitually ignore that, so all bets are off, so to speak.
Now, go try to help your hapless companion.
But it’s ok for you and the obots to talk directly about me—as has been done many times on this thread—impolitely and with no courtesy ping.
Nothing exceeds the hypocrisy and double standards of the left.
I know from experience I can hit you with logical points like this --
I've pointed out to you before that you've got no evidence of a pregnant S.A. anywhere . So that means either (1) she didn't give birth at all (which you're not claiming) or (2) it's quite possible to carry a pregnancy to term and have no extant witnesses to that 50 years later (which shoots down your supposed "point."). You had no answer to this logical deconstruction of your argument before; you have no answer now.
-- and you will just ignore, ignore, ignore. Then you and DL will join in your comic Dance of Dolts and try to pretend I'm the one ignoring points. It's humorous or tedious, depending on my mood.
I didn’t mean to imply that our dear Fantasywriter talked about Lincoln but there is an historical analogy between the places where presidents were supposed to have lived but perhaps never did live.
Wrong.
I actually haven't been having much time to get into these discussions lately. Their is just too much other stuff I ought to be doing, so I sneak what time away that I can. :)
Here is one I hope you caught, if only for humor’s sake. Our retired attorney/reigning king of word-walls explained how long-dead, moldering corpses can give real-time testimony. It’s so simple, really. The attorney merely decides what testimony the corpses could give that would most help his case, and then he posits that this is exactly the testimony the corpses *would* give, if only they were not desiccated, six-feet-under skeletons.
He's such a narcissist that he cannot entertain the thought that everyone in History didn't agree with him. His world view simply doesn't allow for contradiction with whatever he himself wishes to believe.
This is beyond words, isn’t it? It’s the old, do you laugh, cry, or just shake your head.
Generally it's just best to mock and laugh when you encounter one of these. There's an old saying:
"Laughter rocks the highest throne."
People so full of themselves are not equipped to deal with deserved mockery.
“I actually haven’t been having much time to get into these discussions lately. Their is just too much other stuff I ought to be doing, so I sneak what time away that I can.”
This is it in a nutshell. The rest of us have obligations, responsibilities, and just in general, a LIFE. By contrast, our obot community evidently has *nothing* to do but sit at their keyboards all day typing walls of words. It is incomprehensible to them that there might be people in this world who literally do not have the time to read never-ending obot wordiness. They have no reference point but themselves, and since they have limitless time, everyone else should too.
While you are right, entirely, about your narcissism comment, there is another angle as well. Namely, for a six mo period, there is NO evidence of any kind that SAD was in HI. (There is only the flimsiest evidence that she was there for the 2-3 mos preceding this interlude.)
Thus, if an obot is pressed hard enough to provide evidence of her presence, you can see why he/she would turn to dead people. In the total absence of anything better, those corpses start looking pretty good after a while (at least to certain types).
‘”Laughter rocks the highest throne.”’
That is a great expression. I never heard it before, but I already love it.
Agree about laughing at the obots. Believe me, I laugh almost non-stop. One of them once posted that his/her comment had “upset” me. My thought was, ‘Really? Should I be upset that you are making me laugh too hard?’
They truly do not grasp how much entertainment they provide.
I just want to add one thing. Evidently the obots have stumped themselves on a painfully simple point. I.e.: they cannot figure out what it means that no one saw a pregnant SAD in HI. I gather they imagine it means she wasn’t pregnant anywhere. [The stupidity inherent in this ‘logic’ is truly painful to behold.]
It’s sad that people who claim to be at least minimally intelligent cannot figure this out. But I am not here to do the obots’ thinking for them; they will just have to figure it out for themselves.
If, however, any conservatives following this thread would like an explanation, please PM me. I will be happy to fill you in. Not everyone follows eligibility threads with equal attention, after all, and it would be no trouble for me at all to answer this simple and basic question.
They truly do not grasp how much entertainment they provide.
What I find truly amusing is when you point out the consequences of what they believe, such as "Anchor Babies" and they say "I don't support that."
Well, yes they do. You cannot separate the one issue from the other. If birth citizenship applies to anyone born here you get "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" as a defacto consequence.
One of my main arguments against the jus soli argument for US Citizenship is the fact that it produces a stupid result, and the founders were anything but stupid, ergo they intended no such result.
If, however, any conservatives following this thread would like an explanation, please PM me. I will be happy to fill you in. Not everyone follows eligibility threads with equal attention, after all, and it would be no trouble for me at all to answer this simple and basic question.
I don't follow them as closely as I once did. The point has become moot in our society and I no longer research the topic as much as I used to do. It is no longer a moral imperative because the bulk of the country has simply accepted an incorrect understanding of the laws and history, and many chose to remain willfully ignorant.
Examples of other cases where the legal "authorities" are deliberately lying about the correct meaning of the law are germane to this topic. As a matter of fact, it is the very core of this topic.
It might not be easily proven, but the converse of it should be. If Hawaii had just released the original document, and attested that it was in fact an original document created in the normal and usual process, that would pretty much preclude other possibilities from being correct.
Since they have made such an effort to distance themselves from any certainty as to whether or not the record we see is the original, it merely reinforces our suspicions that they are intentionally hiding the original.
There is no need for conditional statements. That they keep putting them into their letters makes me think that they see a need for them.
And likewise has the notable distinction of being the only President of the Harvard Law Review that never submitted a paper. I have little doubt that they simply put him there because they desperately wanted to show how "diverse" they were, and not because he deserved to be there. Had he been white, with the exact same scholastic achievements, he wouldn't have even gotten into Harvard, let alone become President of the Harvard Law review.
Once again I point out that if his grades were good, we would have had his side shoving them in our faces for the last seven years. What his grades will show is that he was an affirmative action token who wasn't really capable of doing Harvard caliber work.
I had NO idea obots claimed not to support anchor babies. Surely not even obots are that inconsistent and irrational? What a shock. I would have expected to see them strutting around on street corners carrying big ‘Anchor Babies R Us’ posters. I would expect them to be chanting:
“What do we want?
Anchor Babies!!
When do we want them?
NOW!!”
Honestly. And Obama, the forteign-born America-hater, would be prancing right alongside them.
Agree that in Obama’s America anything goes. However, my offer was/is on a different topic. The obots are stumped over the fact that no pregnant Stanley Ann was seen in HI. They evidently think this means she wasn’t anywhere. I have offered to explain this embarrassingly simple issue to any conservative who might be interested.
As soon as you point out another president that went around pushing the idea he was born in a foreign country and had a foreign father.
You get right on that, okay?
I predict a fail on your part again, and another round of my mocking you.
Well you haven't been right yet, but it's rather obvious that that doesn't impede you.
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.