Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus

Your inconsistency is staggering. The courts decide your way on an issue favorable to Obama, and you cite their consensus ad nauseum. The courts reach consensus on an issue that could get you banned, and you ‘disagree.’ You are not sufficiently astute to see that your second position invalidates the first.

You remain the only poster on this cite that elevates the findings of a corrupt and leftist court system to the level of independent authority. Conservatives don’t do that, but liberals do.


173 posted on 06/30/2015 12:50:26 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]


To: Fantasywriter

cite - site


175 posted on 06/30/2015 1:15:18 PM PDT by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: Fantasywriter

You can’t please all of the people all the time. Somehow I will just have to find a way to live with your scorn and derision.

If just one judge, from local small claims courts to the Supreme Court’s conservatives: Alito, Scalia and/or Thomas would write an opinion favorable to the Obama is ineligible movement or if any of the Tea Party caucus in Congress would call for Congressional hearings on Obama’s eligibility, I would gladly change my tune, even six and a half years in.
But until then I will continue to believe that this failed issue helps Obama much more than it damages him. I’m not going there.


178 posted on 06/30/2015 2:07:42 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson