David vs. Goliath!

Forums » Republican Presidential Selection

Back To Topics

David vs. Goliath!

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next »

Anthony Afterwit
- 56 posts
October 31, 2011 10:56:44 PM EDT

You have the right to remain silent on this issue if you like, but you do NOT have the right to silence any one else.

That's funny Mary, because I haven't seen nor advocated shutting people up about anything. What I have seen is a lot pf people running around in essence saying "if you aren't a birther, you aren't a patriot!" That is not exactly open debate or discussion and frankly is an comment designed to shut others up. (In fact, you choose the less than admrable way of addressing me despite me being respectful to you.)

Anthony, I'll email Dr. Keyes and ask him about the 2004 incident again. I'll use your posts to confront him and let you know what his response is.

You can forward it to me as I would like to see the headers on the email. Not that I don't trust you, but given the level of deception on this issue (whether you are a birther or not) it is reasonable to ask to see the response and verify the header.

Thank you.

This post was edited by Anthony Afterwit at October 31, 2011 10:57:51 PM EDT
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 10:57:00 PM EDT

Direct answers to a dishonest list of pure, AAA grade crappola:

1) They are afraid of discovering the truth about Obama
WHEN YOU DISCOVER SOMETHING ONE DAY (WHENEVER THAT IS) TELL ME AND WE'LL SEE IF I'M AFRAID OF IT.

2) They want to hide the truth about Obama
WRONG AGAIN. YOU'D HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME PROOF FIRST AND MAYBE I'LL HIDE IT AND MAYBE I WON'T.

3) They don't care if Obama is a fake and unconstitutional "president."
HE'S THE PRESIDENT, AND SO FAR CONSTITUTIONAL, SO THIS MAKES NO SENSE EITHER.

4) They side with the Dem lib Obots and thereby help promulgate the Obama's secrecy and continued resistance to the truth.
I HAVEN'T MET ANY CONSERVATIVES WHO ARE NOT BIRFERS (BY FAR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES BY THE WAY) THAT SUPPORT OBAMA IN ANY WAY.

5) They love to live with denial about Obama's true origin and background.
THOSE ENGAGED IN DELUSION AND DENIAL ARE BIRFERS. CLOSE TO FOUR YEARS OF DRIVEL HAS PRODUCED *NOTHING*.

6) They love to disregard the Constitutional clear standard for legitimate president.
MOST CONSERVATIVES ARE DEDICATED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN BIRFERS.

7) They love their arrogance and their silence about uncovering the reality about Obama's past; his secrecy and his ascendancy to the White House.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. IT'S A SENTENCE WITHOUT A CAUSE.

8) They think that their conspiracy of denial, arrogance and silence over Obama's Constitutional qualifications to the US presidency is an honest way to deal with this whole eligibility controversy. [That's like going to a OWS sit (shit) in and denying that the place stinks........]
STOP USING VULGAR LANGUAGE. THIS ALSO MAKES NO SENSE. IT'S A SENTENCE WITHOUT PURPOSE.

9) They don't care about the Constitutional requirements for US president.
ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE FOCUSED ON THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY PART OF OF IT.

10) They don't care if our nation is a Constitutional Republic anymore.
WHO DOESN'T CARE? THIS IS THE THIRD SENTENCE THAT IS BEREFT OF MEANING.

Look, here's the truth about all this nonsense: Notice that birfers are focused on insulting those that do not play their game or appreciate their bombast. The entire list seeks to denigrate the opposition to birferism. And for a (very small minority) group of supposed conservatives (who are hurting the conservative cause!), who talk about Alinsky tactics all the time (and they do - boy do they!), they USE Alinsky's tactics even MORE OFTEN THAN THEY TALK ABOUT THEM!

Pointless drivel, the whole list. Instead of a list of ten ways to get Obama out of office before the election, according to birferism twaddle, we get a list of ten things that don't mean much of anything in an effort to insult the vast majority of conservatives.

No wonder birfers are diminishing in number and stature. *L*

Fun stuff though, Hahaha!
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 10:58:05 PM EDT

"Although you make a viable assertion about Ideology, those who trumpet the eligibility concern about Obama (.i.e. his disqualifying non-natural born citizen unconstitutional status), view Obama, himself, as the disease."

That's freakin' stupid!
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:00:44 PM EDT

Mary on Rich's comment: "First, because Dummett is running as a REPUBLICAN. Therefore, it is impossible for people to vote for him instead of the GOP nominee."

I explained this to you before, just last night, and I guess you didn't pay attention or it didn't stick. Why do birfers have such a hard time UNDERSTANDING STUFF?

THE ANSWER IS: People like Drummett run in third parties all the time. And one of your compatriots here has ARGUED FOR VOTING FOR DRUMMETT NO MATTER WHAT, and if he's not the nominee and doesn't run against Obama, that person would rather Obama win! That's the birfer mentality there folks.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:02:45 PM EDT

"Second, the silence of the anti-eligibility crowd enables Obama and the DNC to continue in their fraud. You have the right to remain silent on this issue if you like, but you do NOT have the right to silence any one else. This is the very thing about the anti-eligibility crowd that irks me most."

Too bad: All of the birferism you've been spewing for close to four years has accomplished WHAT so far?

(Cue Jeopardy 'think music')

.
.
.
.
.
.

Pencils down!
.
.
.
.
.
That's right. The Jeopardy answer is....
"WHAT IS NOTHING?"
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
October 31, 2011 11:03:08 PM EDT

Rich, if we want to make sure obama gets re-elected, all we have to do is split the vote on a third party. Been there - done that - never again.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:04:46 PM EDT

"And, where has Kayne Wilson been all these many months? I haven't seen her around at all. Has she really been here to notice whether Dummett was here or not here? Really? If she has been here the whole time, why hasn't she jumped into the blogs by Bob Russell regarding Dummett's campaign? Yet, she jumps into this measley forum thread as if she has been here the whole time. Tsk, tsk, better learn to tell the truth, Kayne. And, you might want to hire someone else to do your watching for you."

Why not answer her comments, instead of making this personal attack on her? What kind of crap is this? "Where did she come from? Where has she been? Who's she dating? What did she eat for dinner? How much does she make at work? Does she drink or smoke?"

All irrelevant.
Deleted Member
October 31, 2011 11:05:26 PM EDT

Anthony - Regarding your October 31, 2011 10:15:48 PM EDT following questions:

Nathan - Where is "natural born citizen" defined in the Constitution? Who has the authority to define it?

Anthony - I could ask the same type of question, "Where is 'life' defined in the US Constitution?"

First of all, the US Constitution was never intended to be a dictionary. As with many forms of literary work, readers and judges have to ascertain the meaning of words and phrases, not only by context, but also by historical precedence. For your own information about what constitutes the presidential requirement of "natural born citizen," please reference the following:

"Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers"
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

"The Logical analysis of a Natural Born Citizen and the clear and compelling evidence that Barack Hussein Obama, II is not a natural born citizen:"
http://birthers.org/misc/logic.htm

Secondly, you ask: "Who has the authority to define it?" Personally, I think that you ask a misplaced question. Since the Constitution is the authority, the question would be more appropriate, this way: "How has the the Constitution's authority, defined the "natural born citizen" presidential requirement?"

Please allow me to introduce a Scriptural analogy. Although analogies aren't always perfect, they do make salient points.

The following observation and [wrong] conclusion could be had: "I don't see the word, 'Trinity' in the Bible. Therefore the teaching of the Trinity is not defined." Now, that conclusion is unwarranted and illogical, to say the least. If dictionary definitions are available for everything under the sun, then why should any of us think or educate ourselves? All we would need is a dictionary definition for everything.

What I am saying, is there are many things in which we do not have dictionary answers to, but, we have clear and definitive answers based upon context, historical background, and legal precedence. And, so, with the term, "natural born citizen."

Finally, there is legal precedence for the "natural born citizen" status. The first aforementioned website I posted in this answer, is owned and operated by a competent lawyer. It is there for information and education. Feel free to go there and further your understanding of the Constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen."

This post was edited by Deleted Member at October 31, 2011 11:08:13 PM EDT
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:07:13 PM EDT

"Of course, Jim wouldn't want to interview Alan Keyes, because Alan is a better debater than Jim."

Haha! I don't debate my guests, because that's not being a good host. If I had Keyes on the show, I'd hear him out on the topic and let him explain what he believes and why. But the whole issue is a NON-STARTER, because (once again you forgot or it didn't take), READ THE FLOW CHART! Everything goes back to the election in 2012. Period. That's it.

Vote him out or we have Obama around another four years, and NO BIRFER !?*%@! IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT.
Rich Helmold
- 213 posts
October 31, 2011 11:11:20 PM EDT

Diana Shifley said:
Rich, if we want to make sure obama gets re-elected, all we have to do is split the vote on a third party. Been there - done that - never again.

---

That's true Diana and that is why I am against third parties, unless they are leftist and splitting the Democrat vote.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:13:16 PM EDT

"I could ask the same type of question, "Where is 'life' defined in the US Constitution?"

PURE DRIVEL: Life is a word with a specific meaning. 'Natural Born Citizen' is a term that needs to be defined because it could mean any number of things. Pointless comment.

"First of all, the US Constitution was never intended to be a dictionary."

YOU'RE NOT DOING THIS! LOLOL Hohoho, hahaha!!! This is too good! Absolutely priceless. Nice bit of squirming, but no points on substance.

Also, the Bible analogy has no place here. In legal documents, the document has the responsibility to define it's terms.

That's why you see in documents all the time clauses that define the terms. Like I might say "supercilious twit" shall be defined as Barack Obama for the purposes of this document," and so from that point forward, every time I talked about a "supercilious twit" the reader would know I was talking about Obama.

'Natural born citizen' is not adequately defined in the Constitution. So I hope Rubio runs for Vice President.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:13:53 PM EDT

Rich, that's why I want Hillary to run for the third party - but she won't.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
October 31, 2011 11:18:30 PM EDT

IMHO, those who argue about the definition of 'natural born citizen' are just using a red herring. It's not that hard to figure out that if you might have loyalty to another country - say because you were born there, one of your parents were born there or consider it home, or you were raised in schools in Indonesia and are a cultural muslim, then you are not.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:21:15 PM EDT

Laken should have OBEYED ORDERS and done the job he committed to do.
Diana Shifley
- 1047 posts
October 31, 2011 11:31:23 PM EDT

maybe - maybe not - his behavior was his choice. We have the right to choose our behavior and take the consequences with dignity.
The government is trying to make us all on par with the military - no rights to object or disagree.
Robert Bassett
- 84 posts
October 31, 2011 11:33:10 PM EDT

Washington Post's Lynne Sladky Probes Marco Rubio's Parents Social Security Numbers But Ignores Obama's Connecticut Based Social Security Number
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/10/wapos-lynne-sladky-probes-rubios.html
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:33:34 PM EDT

Diana, if you're responding to me - it's the duty of a military officer to obey orders. He doesn't HAVE the choice, which is why he is incarcerated.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:34:10 PM EDT

More whining in that Obama Release post.
Doug Walters
- 126 posts
October 31, 2011 11:37:57 PM EDT

Jimmy It is the duty of military officers and enlisted personnel to disobey illegal orders. It is listed in the military code of conduct.
Jimmy Z
- 527 posts
October 31, 2011 11:39:13 PM EDT

Doug, there was nothing about that order that was illegal. He was ordered to go to Afghanistan to care for the troops. Nothing even CLOSE to illegal about it.

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next »