[Moderated] Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion - Page 10

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton.

I bet that makes you wish that you were part of her family. Maybe her parents could have instilled some of that quest for excellence in you as well.

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton.

Absolutely fantastic. I'm impressed by the work-ethic and values that they instilled in their children...it should be an inperiation and a lesson to us all of the value of hard work, taking advantage and leveraging every opportunity to come your way and profound family values put into practice...

Your point?

ETA...I might note, by contrast, the performance of another child of hard-working, not terribly wealthy or elitist parents who failed to take full advantage of his admission to Yale -- Dick Cheney. He dropped out of Yale (dropped being the nice word for "failed") and has been a constant source of national dissappointment ever since.

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 11:39 AM

back to the topic

I heard Carter just rejected the case.

Am looking for confirmation.

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 11:44 AM

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...obama-suit.pdf

Here's the juges order....

Pretty on target given the level of crazy in this case...

dudalb · 29th October 2009, 11:58 AM

Psychotic rants on the Birther Websites starting in 3....2.....1.....

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...obama-suit.pdf

Here's the juges order....

Pretty on target given the level of crazy in this case...

Quote:

This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.

One wonders what that word was.....

fullflavormenthol · 29th October 2009, 12:03 PM

Well you can expect the threats to start rolling in like they did with Land. But seriously what rational person would have expected anything different?

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:11 PM

I like this judge:

Quote:

If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on the likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that line as Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

One wonders what that word was.....

candyass?

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no
constitutional office, is baffling.

Just what I was thinking.

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:33 PM

"Put up or shut up!"

Quote:

However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.

Myron Proudfoot · 29th October 2009, 12:35 PM

some interesting reading:

Quote:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court.
....
Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:37 PM

And just for good measure:

Quote:

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Just what I was thinking.

What she didn't say in the complaint was that the first lady controls Obama through the mercury-based fillings in his teeth (implanted early, one must suspect, in Kenya).

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

What she didn't say in the complaint was that the first lady controls Obama through the mercury-based fillings in his teeth (implanted early, one must suspect, in Kenya).

Well, yeah, but that's still not a Constitutional office!

fullflavormenthol · 29th October 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, yeah, but that's still not a Constitutional office!

Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?!

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?!

It depends, what congressional district are they in?

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Well, yeah, but that's still not a Constitutional office!

Yes, but it does involve dentistry...Orly's other "profession".

headscratcher4 · 29th October 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?!

Indeed, the emperor Xanu might have something to say on the matter.

Horatius · 29th October 2009, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?!

Well, sure, they can. Why they'd do that rather than just eat him, I have no idea.

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Yes, but it does involve dentistry...Orly's other "profession".

...at which I'm sure she's just as competent.

timhau · 29th October 2009, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton.

Now isn't that a mystery. Everyone knows that postal workers in general and black postal workers in particular never have bright kids.

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by timhau

Now isn't that a mystery. Everyone knows that postal workers in general and black postal workers in particular never have bright kids.

now, now, don't be mean to BeaChooser.

Do NOT alter other members' names in order to insult them.

Posted By:LibraryLady

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 01:05 PM

Another quote

Quote:

Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).

Smack!!!!

fullflavormenthol · 29th October 2009, 01:14 PM

I have never gotten the deal with birthers and freakin' de Vattel. No body really mentions him or his philosophy, and all the colonies used English common law; but somehow he is supposedly more important than over 200 years of American jurisprudence?

cwalner · 29th October 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

...at which I'm sure she's just as competent.

Hmm, I need to have a a medical procedure which involves drugging me to make me docile while somebody uses a power tool in my mouth.

My two choices are somebody I know nothing about or some deranged woman who despite repeatedy failing to show she has standing still insists on harrasing our legal system to remove a sitting president from office.

What was that other doctor's name, the guy I Know nothing about? Kevorkian. Sounds great, I'll go with him.

dudalb · 29th October 2009, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Indeed, the emperor Xanu might have something to say on the matter.

Hell, I want to hear what Great Cthuluhu comments will be.......

BeAChooser · 29th October 2009, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So I've confused pride with anything I haven't mentioned?

Yes.

So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc?

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

I would be like asking if you are proud of an experience you had with a prostitute.

I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences.

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

You may have loved it, especially for the money you paid, but you are most likely not proud of it (in the traditional sense).

Are you speaking from experience?

BeAChooser · 29th October 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

You can respond in another thread if you wish to continue this discussion that you started with the derail about Michelle Obama, which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

Alferd_Packer · 29th October 2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

Yawn.

Juniversal · 29th October 2009, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

But that's the problem. The evidence isn't valid and the Birthers ARE nuts.

CptColumbo · 29th October 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc?

Well, I don't know about that, but you apparently don't know the definition of pride. Yet you are trying to prove if someone had it, which is pointless.

Quote:

I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences.

So, you never had an experience with a prostitute that you felt pride about? Well that was my point, you may have loved it, but you never felt pride about it.

Quote:

Are you speaking from experience?

No, I've never seen you with a prostitute. Watching isn't my thing.

Quote:

Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.

The evidence of which you failed to provide. So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct?

Meadmaker · 29th October 2009, 05:56 PM

So, now that you've "stirred the pot" BaC, I have to ask whether you believe this drivel. Do you think it likely that Obama's parents were not married at the time of his birth, and do you think that the answer is somehow relevant to his status as a natural born citizen or his eligibility for the presidency? The other possibility is that your comments are pure trolling.

Either way it's worthy of ridicule, but what sort of ridicule?

Paulhoff · 29th October 2009, 06:06 PM

News Flash, President Obama changes his name to John Smith, birthers are found stun and without a cause walking the streets, seeing that now he sounds so American. On another note, a new group called the slavers has found that Hawaii has never had a law freeing the slaves, News at 11:00.

Paul

BeAChooser · 29th October 2009, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct?

I didn't know forum rules required that one have proof of something before claiming it or commenting on it during discussions of a topic.

If that's the case, that rule has certainly been abused by the Bush haters and Obama lovers who dominate this forum.

Sabrina · 29th October 2009, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

One wonders what that word was.....

*cough*DESERTER*cough*

Just a guess.

fullflavormenthol · 29th October 2009, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sabrina

*cough*DESERTER*cough*

Just a guess.

Or Blue Falcon, or Buddy (rule 10); or at least of good number of words my family would use to describe soldiers who think personal politics are a reason to refuse orders.

CptColumbo · 29th October 2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

I didn't know forum rules required that one have proof of something before claiming it or commenting on it during discussions of a topic.

When you found that you were making no head way with attacking the President of the United States you started derailing the tread by attacking the First Lady. I can only assume it was because you had exhausted all attempts to further your points on the topic and only wanted to find another way to attack the man elected by a majority of the voting public. Since you have nothing further to add on the subject of the thread, or at least haven't done so, I would guess you're done here, much like the OP.

Quote:

If that's the case, that rule has certainly been abused by the Bush haters and Obama lovers who dominate this forum.

So there are only the two extremes. You either love the President of hate him (either of them). There is no way someone might defend a person (any person) from an unfair and unprovoked attack on his/her character, simply because it is the right thing to do.

BeAChooser · 29th October 2009, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

When you found that you were making no head way with attacking the President of the United States you started derailing the tread by attacking the First Lady.

I made no attack on the first lady. I simply reported what she said and verifiable facts about her life. Times must be tough when quoting what a person says and citing facts about their life is viewed as an attack.

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

I can only assume it was because you had exhausted all attempts to further your points on the topic

Really? Here, try this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411

Quote:

A California judge has dismissed a complaint challenging President Obama's eligibility to be president citing the "birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" that apparently refers to an Internet image of a "Certification of Live Birth" released during Obama's campaign.

The ruling came this morning from Judge David Carter who as WND reported last night apparently recently hired a law clerk out of the law firm that has been paid nearly $1.7 million to defend Obama from such eligibility challenges.

... snip ...

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Curious.

And even more curious is that Wikipedia responded by removing the names of Carter's clerks from it's pages.

And by the way. ... did you actually look at the ruling? Essentially it boils down to this:

The court says Obama's eligibility should be resolved by Congress.

Congress says this issue should be resolved by the court.

So it's a Catch 22.

Arus808 · 29th October 2009, 07:13 PM

ah more twisting of the truth on WND's part. they have to accuse everyone under the sun to make their "conspiracy" and rumor mongering work.

By the way, congress made no such claim. Presidential eligibility will always and forever be handled by the Electoral College and Congress.

CptColumbo · 29th October 2009, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114411
Curious.

And even more curious is that Wikipedia responded by removing the names of Carter's clerks from it's pages.

And by the way. ... did you actually look at the ruling? Essentially it boils down to this:

The court says Obama's eligibility should be resolved by Congress.

Congress says this issue should be resolved by the court.

So it's a Catch 22.

So, if true (and I don't see any source for the story (other than "A Wikipedia page has been cited by dozens of bloggers)), they are suggesting that he hired a clerk who worked at a law firm. How is that a conflict?

The judge didn't really get anything out the hiring, except a law clerk with experience.

Now if the law firm paid the clerks salary and threw in a massage therapist, then there might a issue. Otherwise, so what?

BTW it is the job of the Congress to unseat a President.

29th October 2009, 09:59 AM	#361
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton. I bet that makes you wish that you were part of her family. Maybe her parents could have instilled some of that quest for excellence in you as well.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 10:01 AM	#362
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton. Absolutely fantastic. I'm impressed by the work-ethic and values that they instilled in their children...it should be an inperiation and a lesson to us all of the value of hard work, taking advantage and leveraging every opportunity to come your way and profound family values put into practice... Your point? ETA...I might note, by contrast, the performance of another child of hard-working, not terribly wealthy or elitist parents who failed to take full advantage of his admission to Yale -- Dick Cheney. He dropped out of Yale (dropped being the nice word for "failed") and has been a constant source of national dissappointment ever since.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson Last edited by headscratcher4; 29th October 2009 at 10:04 AM.

29th October 2009, 11:39 AM	#363
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	back to the topic I heard Carter just rejected the case. Am looking for confirmation.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 11:44 AM	#364
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...obama-suit.pdf Here's the juges order.... Pretty on target given the level of crazy in this case...
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

29th October 2009, 12:03 PM	#366
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com...obama-suit.pdf Here's the juges order.... Pretty on target given the level of crazy in this case... Quote: This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve. One wonders what that word was.....
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 11:58 AM	#365
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	Psychotic rants on the Birther Websites starting in 3....2.....1.....

29th October 2009, 12:03 PM	#367
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Well you can expect the threats to start rolling in like they did with Land. But seriously what rational person would have expected anything different?

29th October 2009, 12:11 PM	#368
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	I like this judge: Quote: If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on the likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that line as Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:13 PM	#369
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	Originally Posted by Horatius One wonders what that word was..... candyass?
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 12:19 PM	#370
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	Quote: 2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling. Just what I was thinking.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:33 PM	#371
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	"Put up or shut up!" Quote: However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:35 PM	#372
Myron Proudfoot Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Washington DC area. Posts: 959	interesting some interesting reading: Quote: The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. .... Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court's decision.
	__________________ That's odd. That's very odd. Wouldn't you say that's very odd??

29th October 2009, 12:37 PM	#373
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	And just for good measure: Quote: Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:38 PM	#374
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Horatius Just what I was thinking. What she didn't say in the complaint was that the first lady controls Obama through the mercury-based fillings in his teeth (implanted early, one must suspect, in Kenya).
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

29th October 2009, 12:41 PM	#375
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 What she didn't say in the complaint was that the first lady controls Obama through the mercury-based fillings in his teeth (implanted early, one must suspect, in Kenya). Well, yeah, but that's *still* not a Constitutional office!
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:46 PM	#376
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Horatius Well, yeah, but that's *still* not a Constitutional office! Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?!

29th October 2009, 12:47 PM	#377
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?! It depends, what congressional district are they in?
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 12:47 PM	#378
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by Horatius Well, yeah, but that's *still* not a Constitutional office! Yes, but it does involve dentistry...Orly's other "profession".
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

29th October 2009, 12:49 PM	#379
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?! Indeed, the emperor Xanu might have something to say on the matter.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

29th October 2009, 12:50 PM	#380
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,890	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Oh, so you are saying that the crab people of Blarknog 7 can use mind control to influence the president?!?!?! Well, sure, they can. Why they'd do that rather than just eat him, I have no idea. Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Yes, but it does involve dentistry...Orly's other "profession". ...at which I'm sure she's just as competent.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

29th October 2009, 12:59 PM	#381
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,659	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Who somehow managed to send not one, but two children to Princeton. Now isn't that a mystery. Everyone knows that postal workers in general and black postal workers in particular never have bright kids.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

29th October 2009, 01:05 PM	#383
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	Another quote Quote: Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint). Smack!!!!
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 01:14 PM	#384
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	I have never gotten the deal with birthers and freakin' de Vattel. No body really mentions him or his philosophy, and all the colonies used English common law; but somehow he is supposedly more important than over 200 years of American jurisprudence?

29th October 2009, 01:17 PM	#385
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,699	Originally Posted by Horatius ...at which I'm sure she's just as competent. Hmm, I need to have a a medical procedure which involves drugging me to make me docile while somebody uses a power tool in my mouth. My two choices are somebody I know nothing about or some deranged woman who despite repeatedy failing to show she has standing still insists on harrasing our legal system to remove a sitting president from office. What was that other doctor's name, the guy I Know nothing about? Kevorkian. Sounds great, I'll go with him.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

29th October 2009, 01:26 PM	#386
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Indeed, the emperor Xanu might have something to say on the matter. Hell, I want to hear what Great Cthuluhu comments will be.......

29th October 2009, 04:36 PM	#387
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by CptColumbo Originally Posted by BeAChooser So I've confused pride with anything I haven't mentioned? Yes. So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc? Originally Posted by CptColumbo I would be like asking if you are proud of an experience you had with a prostitute. I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences. Originally Posted by CptColumbo You may have loved it, especially for the money you paid, but you are most likely not proud of it (in the traditional sense). Are you speaking from experience?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

29th October 2009, 04:47 PM	#388
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by CptColumbo You can respond in another thread if you wish to continue this discussion that you started with the derail about Michelle Obama, which has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

29th October 2009, 04:55 PM	#389
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,211	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts. Yawn.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

29th October 2009, 05:32 PM	#390
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts. But that's the problem. The evidence isn't valid and the Birthers ARE nuts.
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

29th October 2009, 05:50 PM	#391
CptColumbo Just One More Question Join Date: May 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 9,130	Originally Posted by BeAChooser So I'm confusing pride with hate, with envy, with despair, with hunger, with desire, etc. etc. etc? Well, I don't know about that, but you apparently don't know the definition of pride. Yet you are trying to prove if someone had it, which is pointless. Quote: I don't know about you but I've had no such experiences. So, you never had an experience with a prostitute that you felt pride about? Well that was my point, you may have loved it, but you never felt pride about it. Quote: Are you speaking from experience? No, I've never seen you with a prostitute. Watching isn't my thing. Quote: Actually, the issue of what evidence suggests Obama hasn't been telling the truth about his birth and the status of his mom at the time is entirely on topic to this thread. Since if that evidence is valid, Birthers wouldn't be nuts. The evidence of which you failed to provide. So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct?
	__________________ I've been involved in a lot of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower, but you make more money as a leader.--Creed, "The Office" The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be only found in the minds of men. Prejudices and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own.--Rod Serling

29th October 2009, 05:56 PM	#392
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,442	So, now that you've "stirred the pot" BaC, I have to ask whether you believe this drivel. Do you think it likely that Obama's parents were not married at the time of his birth, and do you think that the answer is somehow relevant to his status as a natural born citizen or his eligibility for the presidency? The other possibility is that your comments are pure trolling. Either way it's worthy of ridicule, but what sort of ridicule?
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

29th October 2009, 06:06 PM	#393
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	News Flash, President Obama changes his name to John Smith, birthers are found stun and without a cause walking the streets, seeing that now he sounds so American. On another note, a new group called the slavers has found that Hawaii has never had a law freeing the slaves, News at 11:00. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing Last edited by Paulhoff; 29th October 2009 at 06:10 PM.

29th October 2009, 06:21 PM	#394
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by CptColumbo So you are done with that topic and won't bring it up again without any proof, correct? I didn't know forum rules required that one have proof of something before claiming it or commenting on it during discussions of a topic. If that's the case, that rule has certainly been abused by the Bush haters and Obama lovers who dominate this forum.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

29th October 2009, 06:28 PM	#395
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 6,870	Originally Posted by Horatius One wonders what that word was..... coughDESERTERcough Just a guess.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.*

29th October 2009, 06:36 PM	#396
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Sabrina coughDESERTERcough Just a guess. Or Blue Falcon, or Buddy (rule 10); or at least of good number of words my family would use to describe soldiers who think personal politics are a reason to refuse orders.