Have you dreamt of your President making a fool of you? Your dreams have come true. Congratulations!
Yes, you know that document that has been on the Internet that the “birthers” have been trying to tell you is not a legal document? You know that document you’ve been poring over to show us the results of all your impressive, technical scrutiny? If you’re planning on applying for a forensics position in the future, your hero has destroyed those aspirations, unless you get on the stick and scrub the comments, of course. If you’re not contemplating any career changes, you can also opt to let them remain as proof of your undying devotion and loyalty to the Fraud in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.
Yes, it seems that, according to a recent NJ court case, because of New Jersey’s futile attempt to keep the Chief Fool-Maker off the ballot, it has been revealed that the long-term birth certificate, the one that displayed some big “oopsies," one by listing his father’s birthplace as Africa that we tried to tell you didn’t fly, is a scam, a sham, a complete fabrication of “professional” forgers. Barack, of course, knew this all along, but all of you were doing such a bang-up job with all your “evidence” to “prove” the birth certificate was legal, he sat back and watched you do his dirty work without having to lift a finger.
This reminds me of Hillary when she went out on national TV to let everyone know that she believed Bill before Bill’s infamous line, “I did not have sex with that woman,” was proven only to be a matter of how you define sex. If you’re feeling even a tad betrayed today, give Hillary a call. She can relate and she’s still married to Bill as you’ll still, no doubt, be “married” to the Fraud. She can give you some tips on how to process whatever feelings of betrayal you might be experiencing in the next few weeks and months, and advise you how to put it all in the past and move on with a fresh perspective and renewed confidence, keeping those dying embers forever burning and, depending on the extent of your love, perhaps even restoring your original fires of passion.
Good luck with that. We’ll be watching to see signs of your full recoveries in the future with your usual baseless defenses of whatever he says and does.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 299
He was seriously gloating then too... Every time I heard him (not my choice but he was propped up so by the media it was hard to miss), I was startled because it was so obvious... This 'gift' of hearing and seeing (when watching people) the truth has not always been a blessing.
Look at Briebart! He unknowingly 'called' the date of his death.
You're right Sue... Hillary did have a terrible mess to get through. I was mainly mad at him for lying. We could have just dropped the subject & let it end. At least more that it did. That was embarrassing to go through in front of the world :)
(Embaarassing is a hard word to type. Your fingers just want to keep going. Know what I mean?)
The Democrats have raved about it's foolishness (& it is fair play) that nothing will be posted until they find the end of the story. They're smart.
:)
An then we have the Black Hawk shot down with numerous Navy Seals on Board (WHY so many on the same helicopter?) - the same seals (whose names were never released) who 'killed' Bin Laden? 'body' buried at sea? Oh, and I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge too!
Oh, Chuck, you DID read where Obama's attorney admitted his birth certificate is a fraud and YOU defended that as well. We rest our case... The truth is ALWAYS out there...
Again, MY supervisor, from Arkansas, was the FIRST to tell us about Chelsea and that EVERYONE in that state knew about it... Sadly, she gets her looks from her REAL father...
What truth that he is eligible? The truth of your delusions? There has never been any way to prove his eligibility. You, the great, "thinking" agnostic, has faith in this crook's eligibility, the likes of which I've never seen in a believer in Santa Claus.
It must be because Hussein Obama--the man who supports legalized murder (abortion); the man who is anti-life because he supports contraception--may very well threaten to send drones over the buildings that house Fox, the WSJ, and the Weekly Standard.
THAT'S why!
It isn't enough that Obama has eviscerated his homosexual lovers and Breitbart.
Let's face it:
Obama makes the Fuhrer seem like one of Christ's loyal disciples.
Yes, yes....that must be it!
Watch this comment be deleted. Just watch, Ladies and Gentlemen!
Another evisceration in action!
Brett C. Apr 15, 2012, 1:04pm EDT
"Wait, wait, I know.....
It must be because Hussein Obama--the man who supports legalized murder (abortion); the man who is anti-life because he supports contraception--may very well threaten to send drones over the buildings that house Fox, the WSJ, and the Weekly Standard.
THAT'S why!
It isn't enough that Obama has eviscerated his homosexual lovers and Breitbart.
Let's face it:
Obama makes the Fuhrer seem like one of Christ's loyal disciples.
Yes, yes....that must be it!
Watch this comment be deleted. Just watch, Ladies and Gentlemen!
Another evisceration in action!"
"Besides, at this point, even if they could see possibilities in this amounting to something they wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
The Democrats have raved about it's foolishness (& it is fair play) that nothing will be posted in less, or until they find the end of the story. They're smart. They make their money by their reputation. We don't :)
As I said, I will always think that Hillary Clinton was behind the first Berg lawsuit. Whether or not that is so cannot be proven, but primaries seem to be more viscious than general elections. We saw it with Gary Hart in the 1988 Democratic primary, and with Herman Cain in this primary, to name just two of opposing parties for which the expositions were successful in the candidate's demise. Hillary wanted that nomination very much and I think she had the most motivation at that time to expose the problem.
I'm sure there are better attorneys, and there are attorneys who always knew this case of Obama's eligibility would not have standing in the manner of filing the attorneys who have filed the suits have done thus far as a case against the candidate who has followed the non-compliant state laws that are in place so the best attorneys have not taken it on. Even worse, that some have kept it up after he became President, when only Congress can file suit against a sitting President, doesn't seem to me to be a very prudent course of action for any result of significance, and something that attorneys should have known from the start. It still does not dismiss that there is a constitutional law that requires a President to be a natural born citizen. No state law is following what should be its requirement that such law be adherent to Constitutional law in its procedures to qualify a candidate for President on the ballots in those states. They're saying anyone can run, but if anyone can run, anyone can also be elected. It appears that there is an illegal technicality that is rendering these state procedures valid when they are invalid. I am not a Constitutional attorney so I can't tell you exactly how such a professional would go about presenting this matter of technicality before the court, but I would like to see someone in some state challenge the constitutionality of their state's vetting and certifying procedures of the candidates on their ballot and see how such an attorney might present it.
Source?
"Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds
for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign gathered enough signatures, etc."
Now, from saying that none of the documents the plaintiffs introduced were originals or certified copies, they deduce the imaginary claim she admitted that the original was a forgery. She did nothing of the kind. Birthers, gotta love em, The truth is, one more time, that the birthers brought a knife to a gunfight, and went down quickly, as usual.
Can we just get your propagandist down here, and skip the middle moron? ; )
Sue, can I be one of your pooper-doopers? I see that B.F. showed up...he might need some help defending himself ;)
http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/
What face cream she uses so that you can buy another brand, as it’s clear the one she uses does not work as you can all see in the photos.
And above all did she have a middle age crises over David Miliband in Brussels.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/the-hillary-clinton--david-miliband-political-love-story-continues-6760387.html
There IS a look to being a conservative vs being a lib/prog - am I the only one who noticed?
Ruffle a few feathers, maybe?
Look at all that wasted energy of primitive castigation and ignorant condemnation.
Yessiiiirrreee Rove....
No one has a real, concrete answer to my questions, now do they?
Why.....oh.....why....do....you....suppose....suppose......suppose.....suppose....
that....is?
Oh Me....Oh My.....
Someone tells a joke, probably a stray Conservative they invited to the party. The joke, taken from 2havefun.com. goes like this:
The National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged they had covertly funded a project with the auto makers for the past five years, whereby the auto makers were installing black boxes in four wheel drive pickup trucks, in an effort to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.
They were surprised to find in 48 of the 50 states, the last words of the drivers in 61.2 percent of fatal crashes were, "OH SHIT!" Only the state of Montana was different, where over 89.3 percent of the final words were:
"Hold my beer and watch this."
Ron: Do you have a source?
Brett: Yeah, where's the source? Obama says there are 57 states so do you suppose that's why they never published this in The National Review?
Ron: Yeah, and that reference to black boxes, Brett? How about that part.
Brett: Yeah, leave it to a conservative to tell a racist joke.
The answer is obvious; The mass media is a con game. A propaganda system, that poses as the "free press".
National Review, Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, Fox News
PSSSST!
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
"Right Wing Rags Won't Report Birth Certificate Forgery. Lunatic-Fringe
Right Foiled Again"
Extra! Extra! Read All About It
Here's the story. You can believe Brett, or you can believe the story.
Taken from the update:
"We [plaintiffs] argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.†We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a 'natural born Citizen' because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen."
"Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a 'natural born Citizen,' where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot."
"We [plaintiffs] argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a 'natural born Citizen.' We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “'natural born Citizen,' which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial."
Here is where it gets interesting so pay attention now.
I [Apuzzo, plaintiff attorney] called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version.
Now they make a few concessions. Read carefully below how Hill, Obama's attorney, objects to Wilson's testimony. Why would that be? If the document were legal, why wouldn't she wish to have Wilcox testify? Couldn't she also have provided an expert to refute Wilcox's testimony? Guess not.
So Apuzzo, the plaintiff attorney, makes a concession that he won't have Wilcox get on the stand as long as Obama agreed that the internet image that Wilcox would have testified was invalid would not be able to be used to vet Obama.
The most important part:
She [Hill, Obama's attorney] did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth.
What I have just explained was taken from this excerpt:
"Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. "
So you see, Obama's attorney could not possibly have allowed Wilcox to testify because the proof of fraud would have precluded the necessity to prove his citizenship ineligibility. Instead, she conceded to not being able to use the fraudulent document for vetting purposes since she admitted that it was not reliable information to verify his place of birth and that he also had no other source of information to produce to the court to verify it.
Now you tell me I know nothing about the law when I haven't said a thing about the law that would make any rational person make such a declaration about me. But we all know that...well...but, I am the gracious hostess so I'll leave the ending to your wildest imagination.
Like I said, no deletion of comments on my part here, and you know, I just want to make sure my guests are remembered in case they disappear or delete their own comments so:
R. F. Apr 15, 2012, 11:24pm EDT
"My god, you're ignorant, suey. You don't have a clue as to how the law works. BTW, I thought this was all satire. More of a farce. Connie pretends to know something. Connie retracts what she says. Connie then says what she said in the first place is true and ultimately only shows her pettiness and ignorance. Well done, "suey b. the dumbness is worse than the dumberness".
Of course you say it's satire now, surly. Hahahahaha What a loser.
I want to save that one too. Someday when I have nothing else to do, maybe on my deathbed when crosswords are even too taxing, I'll have someone copy that quote so I can ponder whether he was saying, surely, calling me a surly character, or renaming me Shirley.
She said,“No law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
"...irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”. (referring to the bc)
So what she stated is that the document is not what he needs to produce as evidence of his place of birth which precludes the necessity of presenting it and having Wilcox testify. But there isn't any other proof of his citizenship either so not allowing Wilcox to testify with the document Obama has been using as a proof of his eligibility outside of court couldn't be more evasive. Even though there may be no law in NJ to use a birth certificate as proof of citizenship, it is also incumbent on the Secretary of State to vet the candidates on the ballots. If he has no other means to prove he's eligible then how can they vet him?
By the way, I don't think she was actually at the hearing. It seems it was already determined before the hearing that Wilcox would not be able to testify under the assertion that the birth certificate was irrelevant according to her, and that she stated there was no law in NJ that the document itself was required for evidence of proof. The agreement that he would not testify and much of what was in Nate's article were preliminary discussions that happened prior to the actual hearing, and whether or not they occurred in the judge's chambers is not clear. There's a 35 page PDF in that blog link in Nate's article that explains.
Well, maybe they're accurate quotes and maybe they're not. I watched the video that showed the sections of the proceedings dealing with the PDF birth certificate document again, and I didn't hear her say those things. But she certainly made enough similar comments that I'm willing to accept those as accurate quotes.
What they are not are quotes where she "admitted the document is fraudulent". What she stated repeatedly in her objections was that all the "evidence" offered in relation to President Obama's name and/or identity were irrelevant to the case because 1) there was no requirement within NJ statutes that he offer the NJ Sec. of State any form of ID, including a birth certificate, to be eligible for inclusion on the presidential primary ballot, and 2) the burden was on the objectors to offer proof that the candidate was ineligible to be on the ballot, not on the Obama campaign to prove anything.
"By the way, I don't think she was actually at the hearing."
She was actually at the hearing.
"The agreement that he would not testify and much of what was in Nate's article were preliminary discussions that happened prior to the actual hearing, and whether or not they occurred in the judge's chambers is not clear."
Nope. Those discussion happened, in public, during the hearing. It's all on the video. In fact, Wilcox had been called, and was sitting in the witness stand (but hadn't been sworn in) throughout the discussion, and once it was clear that his testimony would be irrelevant, he was thanked and told to step down.
I thought the PDF link was in one of the direct links that Nate's article pointed to, but I could have clicked other links in those articles that took me to that page where the PDF link was that I found. It could also be that it has since been edited out. That's not so important because it might have meant that she just wasn't present for that particular part.
"What she stated repeatedly in her objections was that all the 'evidence' offered in relation to President Obama's name and/or identity were irrelevant to the case because 1) there was no requirement within NJ statutes that he offer the NJ Sec. of State any form of ID, including a birth certificate, to be eligible for inclusion on the presidential primary ballot."
So you admit that she stated repeatedly that there's no documentation requirement in NJ law for a Secretary of State to be included on the ballot. However, even though there is no requirement according to NJ law of specific document for validation, it is required that Secretaries of State vet their candidates who will appear on the ballot. There must be some evidence of proof to vet a candidate so what evidence of proof can be submitted other than the proof his administration has been pointing to on the Internet outside of legal jurisdiction to prove his rightful and lawful eligibility to the public? There isn't any? Well, then how does he prove it? She's basically saying he doesn't have to.
"the burden was on the objectors to offer proof that the candidate was ineligible to be on the ballot, not on the Obama campaign to prove anything."
The burden, if allowed to be presented, would have been on the objectors, but they have eliminated any such possibility conveniently so that there can be no objections. There is still the burden of proof that he is eligible which has not been substantiated by any means, and if there were no burden of such proof on a candidate, Putin could run for President of the US. I don't suppose that would bother you either, but that's not the point.
There's a good joke here, I'm sure of it, but I'll just leave it alone, I think. :)
"So you admit that she stated repeatedly that there's no documentation requirement in NJ law for a Secretary of State to be included on the ballot."
I haven't admitted or stated any such thing, and neither did Ms. Hill. I have no idea what you're talking about.
"However, even though there is no requirement according to NJ law of specific document for validation, it is required that Secretaries of State vet their candidates who will appear on the ballot."
That may or may not be true, but it wasn't relevant to the case, as Ms. Hill pointed out repeatedly, and as Judge Masin explained in his decision. Based on what was said in the hearing, in the decision, and after reading the statutes, all I can find is that after the petition has been filed with the Secretary of State, the candidate is required to file a certificate saying that they consent to the nomination, that they're a member of the party nominating them, and that they're qualified to hold the office they're being nominated for. And as far as I can see, that's it. No requirements for additional proof or documentation required, and no requirement that the Secretary of State demand any.
As Judge Masin said to Apuzzo, "Well, you know, with all due respect, counsel, if you want to suggest to the legislature that they change the law and increase the specifics of how you identify yourself, be my guest. But we're here dealing with what the statutes now require, not what we might suggest, perhaps, they ought to be."
"There is still the burden of proof that he is eligible which has not been substantiated by any means, and if there were no burden of such proof on a candidate, Putin could run for President of the US."
The law in NJ limits that "burden of proof" to a simple certification, with no requirement for any documentary evidence. If New Jersey Republicans were to nominate Putin, and he certified that he was eligible, I don't know that there's any law that says the Secretary of State of New Jersey has the authority to demand that he provide some kind of proof that he's eligible.
"I don't suppose that would bother you either, but that's not the point."
I would bother me, but you're right about that not being the point. And that was the big problem with the Birthers' complaint. Almost all of it was totally irrelevant to the actual case they were involved in, and with the actual law, as written.
What kind of "simple certification" would that be? To whom would it be presented who would be accountable if the person who presented that "simple certification," whatever that might be, ( a note from Mommy?) is indeed a falsified certification that allowed an unqualifed individual according to how the Consititution determines qualification, a natural born citizen to assume the office of President? Or, perhaps you're saying the "simplle certification" does not have to prove the individual Constitutionally eligible? In that case, what's the reason for the "simple certification"?
Since I've never been nominated for inclusion on a presidential primary ballot, I'm not really sure. The law says "Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition, that he is a member of the political party named therein, that he consents to stand as a candidate for nomination at the ensuing primary election of such political party, and that, if nominated, he consents to accept the nomination...". I don't know if there's a special form, or what.
In any case, it's just a statement from the nominee. No note from Mommy, no birth certificate, no Social Security card, no yearbook photos, no kindergarten registration forms required. Just a certification from the nominee saying that they're eligible, and that they consent to be included on the ballot. They can also decline, but up until that point, they're not even necessarily involved in the process at all. A petition could be circulated, and signatures collected endorsing a person without their consent, approval, or even knowledge.
"Or, perhaps you're saying the "simplle certification" does not have to prove the individual Constitutionally eligible?"
No, the individual doesn't have to prove that they're eligible. They just have to sign a statement saying that they're eligible.
"In that case, what's the reason for the 'simple certification'?"
I would imagine that getting an official statement from the candidate regarding eligibility would be considered useful to some degree, plus it shows that the potential candidate has consented to appearing on the ballot. Without it, people could be placed on the ballot even if they didn't want to be, which I would imagine could cause all sorts of problems.
"No, the individual doesn't have to prove that they're eligible. They just have to sign a statement saying that they're eligible."
What is stated in that statement of eligibility that they are signing? Are they, by signing this statement, attesting to be Constitutionally eligible for the office of President?
Would Roger Calero of the Socialst Workers' Party, born in Nicaragua and convicted felon, have signed such a statement? Is that how he got on the ballot in New Jersey, one of the five states in which he appeared on the ballot in 2008?
As for Roger Calero, none of those three things would necessarily make him constitutionally ineligible to serve as POTUS.
"I would imagine that getting an official statement from the candidate regarding eligibility would be considered useful to some degree, plus it shows that the potential candidate has consented to appearing on the ballot. Without it, people could be placed on the ballot even if they didn't want to be, which I would imagine could cause all sorts of problems."
According to wil, the only reason they bother to vet is so you or I won't be placed on the ballot by someone else. It's a protection for us against coercive action to make any of us presidential contenders. The only other reason is that it's "useful to some degree." What usefulness other than that is left to the imagination.
So I am communicating with a person who thinks that a convicted felon and a Nicaraguan born US citizen does not make the person ineligible. (I don't know what the 3rd thing is) Okay, but it does make you ineligible to further carry on any such ridiculous discussion based on such a ridiculous premise with me.
The third thing was that he was a member of the Socialist Workers' Party.
According to the US Constitution, the requirements to be POTUS are 1) natural born citizen; 2) 35 or older; and 3) 14 years resident in the US. There's nothing including or excluding members of any political party, there's nothing about criminal history, and if McCain was eligible despite being born in Panama, then being born in Nicaragua shouldn't necessarily exclude Calero.
"Okay, but it does make you ineligible to further carry on any such ridiculous discussion based on such a ridiculous premise with me."
You're the one who brought up the ridiculous example, Sue. You're the one who made the ridiculous, and false, claims about Alexandra Hill.
People with felony charges can't even vote, but you want to tell me that it's okay for them to be on a ballot so others can vote for them? I'm also not so sure that the definition of residency includes residency in a penal institution either. Residency implies that you're paying taxes as a resident of the US, not living off the taxes of residents.
I did not make any false claims about Hill. What I said stands and is true. You want to call Apuzzo a liar, you can take that up with him. You peeple like to call the shots on who's credible and who's not credible. Your pals take a flunkie writer from the National Review to prove the birth record valid, but when a bona fide digital forensics professional wants to testify in court to prove that it's invalid under penalty of perjury, you all rally behind a judge, an attorney or whomever else you care to attribute the responsibility to have kept the testimony out of the courts.
Yes we are, because you brought it up, and I pointed out that it, along with the other two things you mentioned about him, wouldn't necessarily disqualify him based on the requirements stated in the US Constitution.
"People with felony charges can't even vote, but you want to tell me that it's okay for them to be on a ballot so others can vote for them?"
The US Constitution doesn't stop people with felony convictions from serving as POTUS. Laws disenfranchising felons are state laws, and may mean that the candidate can't vote for themselves, but not necessarily stop them from running, or serving if they were to win.
According to Wikipedia, only a few states impose a life-long voting ban on felons, and two states (Maine and Vermont) don't even restrict incarcerated felons from voting.
"Residency implies that you're paying taxes as a resident of the US, not living off the taxes of residents."
The Constitution doesn't offer any definition or explanation of the residency requirement (it doesn't even say whether the 14 years have to be consecutive), but I don't know of any court ruling that has said it has anything to do with paying taxes. Candidates often make their tax returns public as part of their election strategy, but it's not a constitutional requirement.
"I did not make any false claims about Hill. What I said stands and is true."
Yes you did. You claimed that "there are quotes from a court case by an attorney of Obama [Hill] who admitted the document [the PDF image of Pres. Obama's birth certificate] is fraudulent" and that isn't true. When asked to provide the actual quotes, you came up with "No law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot." and "...irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”, neither of which is anything even remotely resembling an admission that the document is fraudulent.
"You want to call Apuzzo a liar, you can take that up with him."
I have no problem calling Apuzzo a liar, since he is a liar, but what I'm taking up with you, here, is that your statements about Alexandra Hill are untrue.
"You peeple like to call the shots on who's credible and who's not credible. Your pals take a flunkie writer from the National Review to prove the birth record valid, but when a bona fide digital forensics professional wants to testify in court to prove that it's invalid under penalty of perjury, you all rally behind a judge, an attorney or whomever else you care to attribute the responsibility to have kept the testimony out of the courts."
I have no idea what "peeple" or "pals" you're talking about, and I don't see how it has any bearing on the fact that your statement about Hill wasn't true. And if you're referring to Wilcox, I don't know that he's a "bona fide digital forensics professional" or not. In any case, whatever testimony he would've offered wasn't relevant to the case, and Apuzzo looked like a fool for bringing him in to testify.
"The US Constitution doesn't stop people with felony convictions from serving as POTUS. Laws disenfranchising felons are state laws, and may mean that the candidate can't vote for themselves, but not necessarily stop them from running, or serving if they were to win."
State laws must be compliant with federal law, wil. There is no law that can be made that undermines the Constitution or that is illegal under the Constitution. It is a legal right that every man and woman who is a citizen or of permanent resident status in this country can vote. There is no state law that can deny that privilege because it is guaranteed in the Constitution under its equality contention. I suppose that convicted felons can be allowed to run for president, but it doesn't make sense if they can't vote.
My statement about Hill was based on what Apuzzo said. The link is within and I believe I even wrote herein what he said.
The issue here is the natural born citizenship issue, and I told you below that "according to the Constitution to which any law, regulation or ordinance must comply, that any such state vetting process to put an individual on the ballot who can get votes that give that individual any chance to acquire that position must comply with Constitutional Law. As I see it, the vetting process itself is illegal as long as it allows a candidate to get on the ballot without such proof of natural born status. The state of NJ and any other state that does not comply with Constitutional Law in its vetting procedures is non-compliant and the citizens of that state should sue the states that don't comply."
You replied to that below that the vetting process does not occur at the state level. That’s untrue. Here is a link to the certification by John Husted in Ohio, the Secretary of State, who certified the candidates eligible to run on the Presidential primary ballot in Ohio. He vetted those candidates and certified that they were eligible to run.
The SCOTUS ruled that state laws denying convicted felons the right to vote were constitutional, based on language in the 14th Amendment:So while felony disenfranchisement laws might be despicable, they're not unconstitutional.
But in any case, those laws only stop felons from voting, not from running for POTUS. Several people have even run for POTUS while serving their prison sentences. Eugene Debs, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu Jabal are a few of the more famous. I'm not sure exactly how it would work if they actually won. I guess they'd be sworn in in their cell and then immediately pardon themselves?
"My statement about Hill was based on what Apuzzo said. The link is within and I believe I even wrote herein what he said."
Well, not only is your statement untrue, since Hill did not say that the PDF document was fraudulent, but I've read what Apuzzo wrote, and he didn't say she did.
"You replied to that below that the vetting process does not occur at the state level. That’s untrue. Here is a link to the certification by John Husted in Ohio, the Secretary of State, who certified the candidates eligible to run on the Presidential primary ballot in Ohio. He vetted those candidates and certified that they were eligible to run."
Yeah, he certified that they were eligible to run because they signed a form saying that they consented to the nomination, were a member of whatever party, that they formally requested that their name be printed on the primary election ballot, and that they met the qualifications to hold the office. Kimberly Guadagno, the Secretary of State of New Jersey, issued a similar certification. In neither case am I aware of any vetting process involved.
I doubt it. If it's anything like the form here, it just says that they're eligible, and that lying on the form is election falsification, a "felony of the fifth degree" in Ohio.
"Any oifficial who signs off to certify that the individual can be on that ballot withoiout also verification of his natural birth status is not doing due diligence according to the Law of the land. "
You can argue that all day long, Sue, but it seems pretty clear that the law doesn't agree with you.
"He should be sued and every other last blasted politician in this flippin' quagmire that has done the same should also be sued."
Good luck with that, Sue. If you ever try it, I doubt you'll get very far. My view if that the kind of "vetting" process you'll like to see would likely create more problems than it solves.
If I had my way, the natural-born citizen requirement would be changed so that any US citizen would be eligible (I think all US citizens, whether native born or naturalized, should be equal under the law), the age requirement would be changed to be the same as the voting age, and if the residency requirement was kept, it would be explicitly defined.
But my reason for commenting here wasn't really to discuss what "vetting" process should be in place to determine eligibility to serve as POTUS. I commented to point out that your statement about Alexandra Hill was untrue.
LOL, the illegal law, huh? That would be fun to hear in a courtroom. "Your Honor, this law is clearly illegal because I don't agree with it!"
"I don't need luck, wil. You need luck. If all your comment here was to prove that my statement about Alexandra Hill was untrue, that speaks for itself of what is good and righteous and worthwhile to you. So thanks a whole bunch for admiitting it."
No problem, Sue. I'm always happy to admit that I don't think that telling lies about people is good or righteous or worthwhile, and that exposing those lies for what they are most definitely is.
Yes, Sue, I think that, unfortunately, the Patriot Act is legal. I think it's a bad law, I don't like it, and I support the efforts of organizations like the ACLU and the EFF to take the government to court in an effort to have it (or at least parts of it) declared unconstitutional. But I also accept that until it's declared unconstitutional, it's legal, whether I agree with it or not. And I also accept that in order to challenge it in court, real, substantial, legitimate legal arguments have to be presented.
Organizations like the ACLU, EFF, etc. have done so on numerous occasions, some of which have been successful and some of which haven't. In several instances where they've been unsuccessful at having provisions declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, they've continued lobbying Congress in an effort to get those provisions changed, not renewed, etc.
If they'd gone to court insisting that the PATRIOT act was illegal because they didn't like it; if they'd been unable to produce sensible, substantial legal arguments; if they'd embarrassed themselves in court with behavior that made it seem as if everything they knew about the law and legal procedure had been gleaned from episodes of Ally McBeal, as the Birthers and Truthers have done, then I suspect they would've had much less success, and I wouldn't continue to support their efforts.
State-mandated school segregation was declared unconstitutional, but most of the other Jim Crow were legal, until federal laws were passed which made the state laws illegal. Federal laws which people like Ron Paul criticize as, to quote Paul speaking about the Civil Rights Act, "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society".
As for them being morally wrong, I agree that they were. The were bigoted and disriminatory, and it's good that they've been eliminated. Hopefully some day the same will be said about the bigoted and discriminatory requirements to be POTUS, as written in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
What do you think constitutional means, wil? The Constitution is THE law of this country. All other laws must comply with the Constitution and its amendments or the laws are unconstitutional, unlawful or illegal. That they haven't been proven illegal in a court of law is another matter. That's why state laws that do not comply with vetting and certifying a Presidential candidate according to what is stated in the Constitution or the Law of the Land to make them eligible are illegal or unconstitutional. That is why I said the people should be suing the states that certify Presidential candidates to run on ballots according to their illegal state laws.
I never said that they should sue the states because they didn't like the state laws. That's what you said I said, but that's not what I said. I said they need to sue the states because the states made laws that are unconstitutional and thereby illegal. They need to prove in court that those laws are illegal because they are.
The same was true of Jim Crow laws. They were also illegal. If no one had brought those state laws before the court because they were illegal, they would never have been declared what they already were. It is not the act of the court that makes unlawful laws illegal; it's the adjudication of the court that proclaims the illegality they have been and would remain being if not brought to court. Courts don't make laws, wil.
That's right, but that state law would have remained an illegal law had Brown vs. Board of Education not been brought before the courts.
There's no new federal law that needs to be created to ensure that the constitution is being upheld for vetting and certifying eligibility of Presidential candidates. That law is in place. The "illegal" state laws that are non-compliant need to be challenged in court.
No, it's not another matter at all. As I understand it, the SCOTUS has stated repeatedly in numerous cases over a period of more than two hundred years that all statutes are presumed constitutional until proven otherwise. And that the burden of proof rests on the challenger to show that the law is unconstitutional, not on the government to prove that it isn't.
"They need to prove in court that those laws are illegal because they are."
They're going to need to come up with a better argument than "Because they are!" I think that's probably even worse than the "Because I don't agree with it!" strategy.
"The same was true of Jim Crow laws. They were also illegal."
I don't know what specific laws you're referring to, Sue, but many of them were not illegal until new laws were passed making them illegal.
A move by the federal government that Ron Paul and others have expressed disapproval for. Hey, speaking of Ron Paul, do you know whether or not he, as a member of the US House of Representatives, objected to the certification of electoral votes in 2008? And if not, does that mean he's a criminal, too, according to this big Birther conspiracy theory of yours?
"That law is in place."
Only in your imagination, as far as I can tell.
Sure, they're presumed constitutional or lawful. If they weren't presumed so then there would be no faith in the legislative branch that makes them, nor in the executive branch that sees to it that they're upheld. That's why, if they are unlawful, though presumed to be lawful upon their creation and execution, they can be brought before the court to prove that they are indeed illegal or unlawful.
What do you mean you don't know what laws I am referring to? You pointed out one of the public segregation laws yourself in your comment, "state-mandated school segregation." That state mandate was illegal, although upon its creation it was presumed legal, counting on legislators not to have made an illegal law, and on state governments not to have executed one. But they did create an illegal law and they did execute it. Its presumption of legality was proven incorrect and judged to have been legislated and executed illegally in court, and that is why the law was overturned. It was not overturned because the court suddenly made it illegal, but it was illegal, and it was merely proven in court that it was.
The natural born citizen requirement is in place, and it's in the Consitution, wil, not in my imagination. There have been many people who have tried to bring this issue of eligibility to the attention of the courts. No one has had the standing to do it the way in which they have been doing it. I am saying that it is the people who have to challenge the state laws because as citizens they do have standing to challenge the constitutionality of those laws. They don't have the standing, and no one has the standing, it would seem from what we have witnessed so far, to bring suit against someone who may be ineligible according to the constitutionally mandated, natural born requirement. The reason seems to me to be from all we have witnessed, that it is not the candidate who is only following "presumably" legal state laws that are only presumably legal but, in fact, are illegal, who can be challenged for following the illegal laws, but the illegal laws themselves that need to be challenged by people in those states who have the right to challenge those presumably legal laws and will have the standing to do that in a court of law so the court can declare their illegality.
And since the laws we're discussing here haven't been proven, in court, to be illegal, then they're presumed to be legal, whether you agree with them or not, whether you think they're legal or not.
"What do you mean you don't know what laws I am referring to? You pointed out one of the public segregation laws yourself in your comment, "state-mandated school segregation.""
Yeah, but that's only one, and it only applied to schools. I don't know which other Jim Crow laws you're referring to.
"It was not overturned because the court suddenly made it illegal, but it was illegal, and it was merely proven in court that it was."
I think the key issue here is that it was proven in court to be illegal. Unlike these state laws involving candidate certification for being included on the ballot. You keep saying that those laws are illegal, but as far as I know, they have not been proven, in court, to be so.
"The natural born citizen requirement is in place, and it's in the Consitution, wil, not in my imagination."
I think the part that is in your imagination is the idea that the Constitution requires state government officials to demand candidates' birth certificates,etc. before they certify them to appear on the ballot. I think it could be worth a few laughs if a Birther lawyer tries that angle in court, though.
"No one has had the standing to do it the way in which they have been doing it."
Standing wasn't an issue in the recent NJ hearing.
"They don't have the standing, and no one has the standing, it would seem from what we have witnessed so far, to bring suit against someone who may be ineligible according to the constitutionally mandated, natural born requirement."
Based on the decision in Drake, it may be that other candidates could be considered to have "competitive standing" if they file a complaint before the end of the election. But I don't think that solves the issue of whether or not any court has the power to force a political candidate to somehow prove that they meet the eligibility requirements.
"...the illegal laws themselves that need to be challenged by people in those states who have the right to challenge those presumably legal laws and will have the standing to do that in a court of law so the court can declare their illegality."
All they've got to do is prove that the laws are unconstitutional. I don't see that happening. Especially not from the caliber of lawyers we've seen involved in these Birther cases so far. So far, none of them seem capable of putting together anything even resembling a coherent legal argument, and I don't think that's likely to change.
I don’t think anyone has paid much attention to these state procedures at all because as you pointed out, even a convicted felon who cannot vote in that election can get accepted on a state ballot to run for President. That’s playing with fire. I know we’ve got a plethora of laws that make no sense, but this is a serious matter. There’s a Constitutional issue of eligibility that someone needs to be a natural born citizen to attain this office and there is no way anyone is ensuring that law is upheld. The very idea that the natural born citizen mandate is not even defined clearly makes it obvious that no one is following it and no specific documentation is required. If I lose my driver’s license and have to go to the DMV to get another one, it’s pretty clearly defined what forms of identification I need to get another one. I need my birth certificate and I need my SS card, and I think maybe even an envelope with a current stamped date from a utility or some monthly bill to prove my current address. But someone trying to get on a ballot for President doesn’t need to have any required, determined qualification to show to prove he’s eligible as a natural born citizen to possibly attain the highest office. This shows contempt for the Constitution. They can’t pass the buck and say it’s the GOP or the DNC that needs to vet its candidates because they don’t have a legislature that makes laws. Anyway, that would only vet the candidates running with their parties. It eliminates the vetting of candidates from the half dozen or more other parties whose candidates only make it on state ballots on rare occasions and only in some states. It’s okay if someone wants to have any candidate running for President for their party, but if they’re going to be on an official state ballot, they need specific documentation. I see it that the states are accountable and the current laws need to be challenged.
Yes, the NJ case is a case that was at least filed as a ballot access issue and not as a motion to file a suit against Obama so it had standing if this is the NJ case you mean. (There was another recent case, but I don’t know whether it was in NJ or not, where the case got to court and didn’t get thrown out on standing, and I couldn’t understand why it was allowed, but it didn’t last long once it got to court.) The argument he used was not followed up as an issue of unconstitutionality of the state to follow in its procedure for access to the ballot according to Constitutional law, though. So the case got to court, but the argument fell due to “legalities.” Once he wanted to use inculpatory evidence to prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, the case had nowhere to go according to law. There is no law that requires that proof. So we’re left only with the option to try to bring it to court to prove that the state of New Jersey is remiss in its obligation to mandate a vetting procedure in accordance with Constitutional law.
That whole argument that cited precedents and attempted to define natural born citizenship was useless and putting the cart before the horse because if the state ballot law is not requiring candidates to prove with specified documentation anything to do with that law, there’s no reason to define what isn’t being considered.
Maybe they could file a “competitive standing” motion that wouldn’t get thrown out on standing, but that’s not going to solve the issue because it’s also going to only be effective if the “competition” is proven ineligible according to a law that is being executed by the state that would prove the competition ineligible and since there is no such law being executed, we’re back to square one.
The other problem about taking the states to task is that this has been ignored for so long and there have been countless candidates who have passed the same haphazard, “illegal” vetting acceptance procedures. But I think that it still should be attempted because if nothing else, it will cause people to see how the system itself is so lacking in legislation and execution of just any old law that they want to pass.
I was just talking to someone about another law, not a law that’s particularly unlawful, but an unnecessary law, so I asked some questions to try to make the person think about what he said he imagined not having those laws would affect to make him reason. There was not even one reason he could give me aside from his own inconvenience and what his imagination conjured for its necessity. This is what has happened with this issue, only the opposite. People now believe we have a fraudulent President so it’s convenient to give regard to this time, a law that is necessary, but we don’t pass laws and not pass other laws for the sake of convenience, or at least we shouldn’t. I think from a much broader viewpoint, this issue of accountability to states has been disregarded for so long that it makes a statement on how we look at law, how we misuse it and how by creating so many unnecessary laws, the ones that do count are ignored.
Changing the election laws is an option, but so far out of the dozen or so state legislatures that have at least considered it, none have been successful. And I suspect that if any were to be, those laws would be quickly challenged in court and proven to be unconstitutional.
It would be interesting if it were to actually go a little further, and the whole issue of the "natural born citizen" requirement finally and firmly settled by the SCOTUS. Like whether or not it was nullified by the 14th Amendment, and if it turns out that it hasn't, maybe a new amendment will take care of it and the discriminatory age requirement as well. Or like who decides whether candidates are eligible, and how.
On what grounds would the court declare changed laws unsuccessful if state legislatures were successful in doing so?
Yes, I think it would not only be interesting, but it is necessary for the SC to clearly define the requirement at long last, as well as assigning specific accountablity.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about electors having to vote for names on the state ballots, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that state governments can't legally require electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.
" On what grounds would the court declare changed laws unconstitutional if state legislatures were successful in doing so?"
If those laws were anything like some of the "Birther" bills that have tried and died, I think they might be declared unconstitutional due to interference with federal supremacy and/or due to attempting to create additional requirements to be POTUS than are present in the Constitution itself.
But given what I've seen of Birther lawyers' and legislators' efforts so far, I don't think any of them are likely to actually get a law passed. So far all I've seen them manage to do is make themselves look silly.
That is to what I referred when I asked this question: "On what grounds would the court declare changed laws unconstitutional if state legislatures were successful in doing so?"
All you gave me for an answer are some of the things that would be unconstitutional: "interference with federal supremacy and/or due to attempting to create additional requirements to be POTUS than are present in the Constitution itself."
I wanted to know on what specific grounds those proposals that you have seen considered that were unsuccessfully legislated you think would have been declared unconstitutional had they been successfully legislated. How, for instance, would they have interfered with "federal supremacy," creating "additional requirements," than "present in the Constitution itself," or any other specifics in those unsuccessful proposals that showed what would have given legal grounds to have made them declared unconstitutional in court?
Back to what you replied about electors not having to vote for candidates on the official ballots: That's not the issue. The point is that states have certified those candidates so that the electors can vote for them knowing they have met certain requirements the state deemed necessary to be on those election ballots. Hopefully, those requirements would include adherence to the constitutional mandate of natural born, but they do not. I've looked at a few states' ballot requirements. Ohio specified with fairly in depth details how the ballot needs to look for one instance of insignificance, and the Ohio information said that the certification indicated they had followed procedure but they didn’t specify procedure other than what included other relatively insignificant things like having paid a filing fee and some of the same is in this example from Alabama. I use AL because they’ve made it easier to see it outlined on one page what their procedure is to comply with their rules for Presidential ballot access. The rules sound more like something out of Hoyle’s Rules of Games than anything to do with complying with Constitutionality.
You want to say that attempts to rectify the matter are all “birther†nonsense. With that kind of meme in place we will never get anywhere with this because any constitutional attorney who doesn’t want to risk having that and other pejorative labels like racist assigned to him and his practice probably wouldn’t consider touching this issue, at least right now.
Bills that require candidates to provide copies of birth certificates, etc. to state government officials are examples of likely violations of the federal supremacy clause of the Constitution, and examples of additional requirements not in the Constitution itself. Bills that require proof of birth within the US, or with two US citizen parents are other examples of additional requirements not stated in the Constitution.
Claims that these requirements would be necessary to establish evidence of "natural born citizenship" are based on claims of meanings that have not been defined by the federal government.
Also, many of the failed bills require not only the submission of a "long form birth certificate", and since some states don't provide certified copies of the "long form birth certificate", but instead provides a "certificate of live birth", these bills, if passed, could be shown to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.
"The rules sound more like something out of Hoyle’s Rules of Games than anything to do with complying with Constitutionality."
Well, I don't know about Hoyle's but it makes sense that the rules would be about ensuring that the procedure met the requirements of Alabama state law and not with "complying with Constitutionality", since that's a matter for the federal government to deal with.
"You want to say that attempts to rectify the matter are all “birther” nonsense."
No, I don't say that they're all Birther nonsense. Just the nonsensical ones being offered by Birthers.
Also, I notice you keep implying that I've made some attempt to assert that all birthers are racist when I haven't. I haven't said anything about race or racism anywhere in this discussion. While I think it's highly likely that some, possibly many, Birthers are motivated by racism or xenophobia or whatever you prefer to call their feelings that Pres. Obama, based on some real or imagined aspect of his birth or upbringing is somehow not a "real American" and therefore can't possibly be the legitimate President of the United States, I don't think that's true of all birthers. And even for many of those for whom it is an issue, I don't think it's necessarily their sole motivation.
Don't you understand that just because the ballot rules comply with state laws, that's not enough? State laws and any laws or regulations of any sort must first comply with Constitutional law. There is no regulation or rule that can be enacted by any state or municipality that is not also compliant with the Constitution. The state and city laws must be in compliance with the Constitution and any regulations or rules that comply with them must also continue to comply with the Constitution.
Maybe you personally haven't specifically stated that "Truthers, Birthers and Conspiracy Theorists", that you have named such herein, are racist, but that's a corollary at this specific time. I was using "you" in general. I don't think even you would dare to say that people who have brought up this Constitutionality issue during this administration because it relates to this President's eligibility at this time, haven't been called racists as much as they've been called any of the other derogatory names.
You're becoming more and more vague, and also hiding behind intricacies of law and generalities when you are the one who named "a dozen or so" cases of state legislatures that have tried it. You said, "Changing the election laws is an option, but so far out of the dozen or so state legislatures that have at least considered it, none have been successful. And I suspect that if any were to be, those laws would be quickly challenged in court and proven to be unconstitutional." I asked you why and how. Now you're telling me, "Also, many of the failed bills require not only the submission of a 'long form birth certificate', and since some states don't provide certified copies of the 'long form birth certificate', but instead provides a 'certificate of live birth', these bills, if passed, could be shown to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause."
So just for starters, you're telling me that all of the dozen or so cases that you saw all just happened to be of those "some states" that don't require a long form? Also, I don't really know what you mean by "the requirement" either. Are you referring to a normal citizen of whom it is required proof of birth for one thing or another to only need a certificate of birth, or are you talking about far more pressing proof that is needed of a candidate who may possibly assume the office of President as result of being on a state ballot needing only the certificate? To confuse the matter further, you cite The Full Faith and Credit Clause, an intricacy of Constitutional law that only a judge deciding the case might cite as a reason depending on that particular judge. It's a complicated matter when it applies to something like this and no more than a matter of sheer speculation on your part that it would be judged a deterrent to Constitutionality because of that clause.
I suggest you read the Constitution again, because it doesn't say anything about states certifying candidates, or birth certificates, or any of that.
"If that's your reasoning, we can't have as much as interstate traffic laws because it's nowhere specifically stated in the Constitution that you can fine someone for speeding or other highway violations."
Traffic laws don't need to be dealt with in the Constitution because they're not a federal matter. Electing the President of the United States is a federal matter.
"Don't you understand that just because the ballot rules comply with state laws, that's not enough? State laws and any laws or regulations of any sort must first comply with Constitutional law. "
And yet you see very enthusiastic about states enacting laws that most likely wouldn't comply with the Constitution.
"Maybe you personally haven't specifically stated that "Truthers, Birthers and Conspiracy Theorists", that you have named such herein, are racist, but that's a corollary at this specific time. I was using "you" in general."
Thanks for the clarification. In general, there are some people who accuse Birthers of being racists. Of course, in general, there are some Birthers who are racist.
"So just for starters, you're telling me that all of the dozen or so cases that you saw all just happened to be of those "some states" that don't require a long form?"
No, it doesn't matter if the laws are also from the same states that don't issue a "long form". The issue is that states shouldn't discriminate against candidates who happen to be from states that don't issue a "long form." They also shouldn't discriminate against candidates who don't have a birth certificate at all, but that's another issue. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is applicable, because (just using two states as an example) Arizona has a duty to give full faith and credit to the public records (including birth certificates) of Texas, regardless of whether or not those records conform to an Arizona law specifying what sort of information must be included on a birth certificate for it to be considered proof of eligibility to serve as POTUS.
"It's a complicated matter when it applies to something like this and no more than a matter of sheer speculation on your part that it would be judged a deterrent to Constitutionality because of that clause."
You asked me to answer questions about how courts might rule on the constitutionality of laws that haven't actually been created yet. Of course it's a matter of speculation.
The owner of the bar, Mr. Judge, walks in and tossles the hair on the underage kid, and says to the bartender, "Give my buddy here a beer." Thanks, Mr. Judge," say the kid and his buddy .
The sign behind the bar that reads;
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason".
i was always pretty aware after the second woman threw a drink on me - or when the bartender sprayed me down with the multi-flow.
at either point, i was fairly certain i had had a few too many!!!
when the bartender decided i had frank enough - he would grab the multifow and hose me down with tonic water.
SWORE i typoed that already, but can seem to find it lol.
Well I don't know about yours but mine is when I am on the floor-playing cats with a funny smile on my face. No, you don't want to know about the cat bit fellers.
Brian Wilxox, whose testimony was disallowed, is a digital forensics expert. That's what he does for a living. Look him up. I want to see what he has to say, but apparently that is impossible.
I'm not sure a forensic document examiner would consider a pdf of a scan evidence of much of anything.
How's da wedda in Joisy tahday?
You didn't get here "WAY too late" at all, Chuck, because your astute "liberal" pals insisted that it wasn't a satirical article. They've been dialing up Hillary.
It isn't too late to comment on the threads that have ventured into the seriousness of the subject, though. I doubt VERY much that you would want to do that, however. I doubt VERY much that you have anything substantial to add.
You have the reputation of coming to any post with which you have a problem on agreement and making the exact kind of statement you just made, declaring yourself the jury to decide what did and didn't happen, what was said and what wasn't, with no explanation at all, and then suddenly transform yourself into the judge to declare all you don't agree with as silly and insignificant. You play the god role, but not very well. You just make the declarations and then disappear as if you're the God you don't believe in Himself. Well, Chuck, you ought to quit the act or change the role because no one I have ever come across on this site thinks you're God. Most of us don't even think you play the role well at all. So either take a recent comment and refute it or play God somewhere else.
the weak minded, uninformed and those self-aware of their lack of intelligence, are typically ones who portray one who is blessed with insight and knowledge, added to a 'better not dispute me' bully mentality,
to cover up their own deficiencies.
have seen a lot of that here on this post as well as others.
I think they're adorable. She's most-always correct, too.
Admit it, B.F....you love getting slapped-around by her, don't you. You certainly must, the way you keep showing up in the most inconvenient places, being redundent or emphatic, whichever way you'd like to see it. You're like a rash on the inner-thigh :)
heck me bubba, an leroy - we be a willin to do that for them fer free!!!!!!!!
now thats probably true, cause if i had no interest in posting comments, i would see your trivial 'el toro poo poo'.
but sadly, sometimes i just miss the smells of the farm - and you always manage to deliver.
but thanks for playing along.
but hey - you recently commented how you were in the US congress and we know how that is - you can tell when dishonesty is happening, their lips are moving, or they are typing - and usually both at once!
It would seem so, Opinate. What was that?
and exactly what group have you in your imaginary intellect decided i am in?
come on now - get it right, and i will recommend you as an employee at sylvias phsychic hot line! come on now - you can earn 2.99 a minute!!!!!!
dont fret that it is 4 times what your thoughts are worth - cause only people like you call there anyway, and no one will know!
did i get that into language you can understand?
holy crap - what a waste of time it is to respond to a one-track mind like you.
cya! sure wouldnt wanna be ya!
This is what I meant, though...I hopwe this time, anyway.
I have to suppose that some really did. Totally amazing to me, especially in the context of what is so admittedly important to so many now.
So you think that people who fight these imperialistic wars today would be as inspired to think such thoughts as those who were defending liberty in those days? You think these same words would be inspired in the minds of those who are fighting in Afghanistan, for instance? ;)ooooooooooo)
I was down for about 6 days so I'm just roaming around to see who's been writing :)
I think I could still hear your BZZZZZZ coming out from my computer. The only thing that worked :)
It's possible that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. It's possible that I was born on Saturn, after all my Gather profile says so. The only thing I know is that the arguments for Obama's ineligibility to be president are based on assumptions that require belief in a very complex chain of events. Is it possible? Sure. It's too much like an Agatha Christie plot for me.