Mary Hartzler said:
Anthony Afterwit: I realize NOW what I said that offended you earlier...I didn't type your name right. Your last name is unusual, and my brain always sees "nitwit" instead of "Afterwit" (through no fault of your own). As we already know, I have a deficient brain--as most birthers do. Anyway, that was an unforgivable error, and I offer my most humble apologies.
Mary, no worries. I am used to the name being called as people think it is cute or that I haven't heard it before.
Thanks for the apology. It is accepted with the grace with which it was offered,. (And I make no comment on the brains of birthers. Such comments would be wasted and hurtful and I am not into that.)
Now, let's get back to making sure Obama is out of the White House - by whatever legal means.
Take care.
Nathan, As to your "response" of November 1, 2011 2:08:54 AM EDT
Your comment response is about the smoothest Obot response I've ever encountered.
There ya go. Right out of the box instead of addressing the issues brought forth, you launch into an ad hominem attack.
Tell me Nathan, was it not you who took offense in a post a few weeks ago when claimed that people were denigrating you by the use of the term "birther?" That was you, wasn't it? Tell me Nathan, if you are so insulted by a term that many people use simply to describe a set of beliefs, why do you feel the need to insult others?
I have treated you with nothing but respect even though we disagree on this issue and yet you feel compelled to throw out insults without basis or merit.
However, you still not have established the abolition of the US Constitution's established requirement, .......
I don't want it thrown out. I am counting on it. What you are missing is that it is not you who gets to determine what a "natural born citizen" means. The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress. I have shown that and you have chosen to ignore it.
Tell me Nathan, why are you so intent on following one part of the Constitution and yet so against another part of the Constitution? I have seen your writings and you constantly demand a "return to the Constitution."
I agree with you on that desire but unlike you, I am looking to return to the whole Constitution, not just parts of it as you are.
As I said in the previous post, the Congress has determined the definition of "natural born citizen. Their definition is in accordance with the long standing meanings and precedents which you were given as well.
Nice try - but, you don't fool me.
Good. Because I have no desire to "fool" you or anyone. I will stand on the truth - not just part of the truth, but the entire truth and the whole Constitution. I would hope you would do the same, but alas it seems you can or will not.
One more thing, it is interesting to me that Obama apologists have seen fit to join a purported Conservative website to further their Obot views.........
It is interesting to me that people like you see a defense of the law and the Constitution as a defense of Obama. Why are you so scared of the Constitution Nathan? Why do you hate it so and yet join a Conservative site that is full of people that love, read and study the document and its history? Why are you so quick to label people without actually discussing the issue with them? Why are you taking every disagreement as a personnel attack requiring you to resort to childish insults and baseless taunts?
As I said, I am leaning on the Constitution.
Why aren't you?
Jimmy Z said:
Censor the thread? I advocated no such thing. Stop writing so bizarrely. In FACT, I said that I would copy Mary's comment INTO MY COMMENTS so that there would be no question of the context of the thread's lineage. So one thing I was not at all advocating was censorship. Deletion of the whole thread WOULD BE censorship of a sort, and that was advocated by Mary, not me. Got it?
You dense person...have you never deleted a thread because of the division it caused? Have you never regretted starting a thread when you saw the brouhaha that ensued? Maybe you are that perfect, but I am not. I truly wish Jonathan would delete this worthless thread. It has caused more damage than I ever intended.
Just to be clear..... My comment to Mary of
(And I make no comment on the brains of birthers. Such comments would be wasted and hurtful and I am not into that.)
was not intended to be a statement on anything other than a tongue in cheek response to her statement of :
As we already know, I have a deficient brain--as most birthers do.
I like people with self depreciating senses of humor.
I took her comment to be an extension of that sense of humor and tried to return it in kind.
Any interpretation other than that is misguided and misplaced.
While Mary and I may disagree on this "birther" issue, I suspect that over a glass of Dr Pepper we would find more in common than not.
I am sorry if my comment was taken in any way other than a return of her sense of humor.
Mary, political discussion is the discussion of agreement and disagreement - division might be part of that. It's all part of the same thing. I have no problem with division. In terms of Obama, the Occupy mob, socialists, communists, anarchists, Ron Paulites, militant atheists, militant homosexuals (and the list goes on), you bet I'm FOR division. I embrace division.
I happen to think this thread is very worthwhile. There are quite a lot of insightful writings within it, people have taken time to compose their thoughts here over many days and pages. To delete all of that would be a terrible thing.
Anthony, make that a Diet Dr. Pepper and we have a date. :) I knew you were teasing, and I didn't take your comment seriously. If we cannot laugh at ourselves, then life is pretty boring I think.
Just to report back on my attempt to reach Dr. Keyes. The websites you link do not appear to be "official Keyes" websites, even though they use his likeness. When I did go to his website the other night it wasn't working. His "loyal to liberty" website has been hacked many times since Obama rose to power.
I think I was wrong about Keyes having the specific memory of the event, though. I saw testimony elsewhere (following a link in your link) that a supporter had talked to Keyes by phone about the incident and Keyes had no memory of the event. The debate was (according to this person) recorded by and later re-aired by C-SPAN. Following the re-air in 2008 (C-SPAN thought it would be interesting since it appeared Obama was going to run for president), C-SPAN felt the need to disspell any rumors that Obama had admitted he wasn't a natural born citizen. The announcer said that Mr. Obama only said it wasn't a requirement for the U.S. Senate. The person testifying said he had been deployed overseas when it aired live, and he was delighted to see it re-aired because Alan Keyes is one of his favorite people. I don't have a clue what the re-air date was, or how to even get a copy of that snippet where they tried to dispell the rumors.
Some time after the Keyes v. Bowen suit was filed, Alan had us all scouring the internet looking for an unedited copy of that tape showing their verbal exchange. Naturally, we couldn't find one.
At any rate, each of us (except Jimmy) will look at this evidence and draw our own conclusions. Most have their minds already made up, and no one is going to convince them that another position is better. There is no evidence anywhere that Jimmy will ever admit makes him catch his breath and say "ohhhh."
Jimmy, other than your crudely prepared flow chart, what other evidence do you put forth to prove your allegation that the American people do not support it (eligibility). What evidence do you put forth to prove your allegation that Congress will (future tense) never impeach Obama? What evidence to you put forth to prove your allegation that the country would not be better off if we made Obama into some kind of race or political martyr (not that I believe such would happen, but you apparently do).
Do you have such evidence? Polls you've taken? Research you've done? Crystal ball you've consulted? Anything?
Nathan,
Also, I simply cannot believe that you are serious, when you insinuate that you are offended when I suggest you are one of those complacent "Obots." That, is my opinion and I do not intend any ill will toward you, no matter how you might want to spin my opinion to your propaganda advantage.
I'm sorry, are you really trying to say that the term "Obot" is being used in a flattering sense? Do you believe "Obot" is some sort of compliment?
Please, don't insult the intelligence of people who read this forum.
Furthermore, you keep on stating that Congress has the authority to determine the eligibility of the president.
No sir, I am saying that the Constitution allows the Congress to determine, define and codify the meaning of "natural born citizen."
That power is found within the Constitution itself as I have repeatedly stated and which you have yet to address.
Instead of addressing it, you bring up the McCain resolution
McCain was born outside of the US or US territory in a hospital in a foreign land. Yet you admit the Congress had the authority to define McCain's status as a fitting the definition of "natural born citizen."
You admit Congress had the authority to say McCain met the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen."
In other words, you admit the Congress had the ability to define "natural born citizen" as I contend, and then try to say they do not in your next breath.
I appreciate your response greatly as it shows the fallacy of your position.
Jimmy Z said:
Mary, the fabulous, entertaining and TRUE flow chart shows clearly that nothing accomplishes anything before Election Day. All roads lead to election day, as you will have to admit on the day AFTER election day.
Translation: I ain't got no other evidence, other than the flow chart I dreamed up.
