George Stephanopoulos Badgers Michele Bachmann to Denounce Birthers, Defend President's Christianity
George Stephanopoulos on Thursday followed in the footsteps of other journalists who are lecturing Republicans on the need denounce birthers and declare Barack Obama a Christian. The co-anchor quizzed Michele Bachmann four times on the President's faith and citizenship.
He pestered, "You know, a sizable number of GOP primary voters are questioning President Obama's faith and citizenship. Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?"
Stephanopoulos, like NBC's David Gregory, found no answer sufficient. The ABC host snapped, "Do you believe it?...I'm just asking if you believe it?" The Republican representative insisted she takes "the President at his word" that he's a Christian. This still wasn't enough for Stephanopoulos.
He complained, "But you can't say that- you can't just sit there and declare the President's a citizen and he is a Christian?"
On Sunday's Meet the Press, David Gregory hectored House Majority Leader John Boehner about the birth certificate issue: "As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?"
In January, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams followed a similar line of attack.
The same journalists who subject Republicans to inquisitions over the birth certificate issue also indulged the conspiracy theories of filmmaker Michael Moore's 20004 movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. They certainly didn't press Democrats to distance themselves from the leftist director.
A transcript of the February 17 segment, which aired at 7:12am EST, follows:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Joining us now, that potential challenger you said could be the Tea Party's favorite. She's the leader of the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, thanks for joining us this morning. So, Congresswoman, you've been to Iowa several times. You're heading to South Carolina this weekend. Another early contest. You're going to New Hampshire next month. I know you haven't made any decisions yet. But why are you interested in the presidency?
MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, I'm interested, primarily, in making sure for the next year. We're talking about the issues that the country is facing. And, so, I want to make sure in the midst of looking at all the individual candidates, which must be done, that we continue to focus on the issues of overspending, debt, national security. So, that's really what I'm doing. I'm trying to set the table, if you will, because these voters are vital in the early states. They're going to make a very important decision about our nominee. So, my focus, really, is to keep the voters focused on the issues.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those issues are being raised by all potential candidates. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich. So, what do you bring to this potential race that the others don't?
BACHMANN: Well, I think what I bring is being here in the front lines here in Washington D.C., where all of the decisions have been made over the past four years, that have radically changed our country. And for many Americans, they believe we're not going down the right track right now. So, I want to take that information out into these different early primary states. And to listen to people. I've been privileged to be part of the tea party movement. This has been the verve and the vibrancy we've seen of people getting engaged again. I want to take that perspective out to listen to people when I'm going out to the early primary states.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What's the trip wire to get in to this race? If Sarah Palin decides not to run, are you in?
BACHMANN: You know, I'm not there yet. I've not made a decision whether or not I'm going to engage. And, so, we'll see. I really want to talk to the people that are in the early primary states and listen to them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you a question about the foreign policy. We've seen this revolution sweeping across Egypt and the Middle East, those protests in Bahrain this morning. If you were President right now, how would your approach differ from President Obama's?
BACHMANN: Well, I think there's some principles that I would focus on. Number one, my first question would be, what are the vital American interests in the region? Number two-
STEPHANOPOULOS: What are they?
BACHMANN: What would best be- What would best be done to secure the safety of the American people? I think, third, my interests would be, what is the long-term view of the Middle East? We're looking at a historic shift in instability in the Middle East region that isn't just one nation. But this is impacting a multiplicity of nations. So, I think we need to have a long-term perspective. And I think beyond that, this really underscores the need for high-quality level of intelligence. I'm privileged to sit on the Permanent Select Committee for Intelligence. We're secured with dealing with the nation's top classified secrets. I'm prohibited on going any farther on commenting on specifics in the matter. But, those are some of the principles I would be looking at.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What is America's number one vital interest in the Middle East?
BACHMANN: Well, there are multiple issues that we have, and multiple interests that we have and multiple issues in the Middle East. But our safety and security of people in the United States is always number one.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on, now, to this controversy, the debate you had with the First Lady, Michelle Obama, over breast-feeding. She said, her encouraging of young African-american mothers to breast-feed to avoid obesity, for example, is another nanny state. What's your objection to that?
BACHMANN: Well, I'm a federal tax litigation attorney. That is my legal background and also my scholarly background. And my quarrel isn't necessarily with the whole topic. I've given birth to five children myself. I strongly believe in breast-feeding. I think what this points up again is that the tax code is used by government as social engineering. I spent years in the United States federal tax court seeing the difficult burden of the tax code in people's lives. And I think the federal government should stop social engineering. I would really prefer to see us scrap the tax code and find something that is simpler, fairer, flatter. People are in the process now of the hassle of filling out their income tax return. And it is a very unwieldily document. Most Americans have to go to professional preparers just to fill out a tax return. So, really, my quarrel is with the tax code and the great complexity that the tax code is for the average American.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, a sizable number of GOP primary voters are questioning President Obama's faith and citizenship. Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States?
BACHMANN: Well, that isn't for me to state. That's for the President to state. And I think that-
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it?
BACHMANN: When the President makes his statements, I think they need to stand for their own.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, he has said it very clear. I'm just asking if you believe it?
BACHMANN: Well, I think we should take the President at his word.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you can't say that- you can't just sit there and declare the President's a citizen and he is a Christian?
BACHMANN: You know, what I focus on today, George, is today is the two-year anniversary of the stimulus program, where we spent $1 trillion to make sure that unemployment won't go above eight percent. That's what I'm worried about because the people in the sixth district of Minnesota are concerned about job creation. And that's a lot more important than dealing with these other issues.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Final, quick question. I'm just curious: We have a big day. Lady Gaga here in the studio. Are you a fan?
BACHMANN: [Laughs] You know, I don't really know that much about Lady Gaga. I hate to say it. I have a lot of children. But I don't know much about Lady Gaga.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
→ Snuffy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:46pm.
Can you just state, for the record, that you believe sex with Hillary Clinton is a wonderful memory?
No? You mean it wasn't so wonderful?
That's the type of silly-a$$ question you're throwing out there Snuffy.
So when the MSM isn't talking about the importance of
Submitted by Lipton on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:53pm.
separation of church and state, they harrass elected officials about the faith of other elected officials.
True Christians
Submitted by wingnut55 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:53pm.
George tell me when is the last time the President went to church. I believe that real Christians go every Sunday that they can. Even on vacation I go to a church on Sunday. President Obama isn't on vacation in Washington and should have a church to go to. When he starts attending a church on a regular basis I will believe he is a Christian and not before.
Your predecessors dealt with
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:08pm.
Your predecessors dealt with church attendance in various ways. Jimmy Carter taught Sunday school at a Baptist church in Virginia while he was President. Ronald Reagan didn't go to church at all, citing the hassle of making a church set up security screening for parishioners. The Clintons drove down the street every Sunday to Foundry United Methodist, where Chelsea sang in the youth choir. George W. Bush never became a regular member of any local church, preferring to worship most often at the chapel at Camp David.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1859234,00.html?imw=Y
I assume that you also have your doubts about George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan's Christianity.
→ You're right, loblow
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:18pm.
And Barack Hussein Obama proudly recited the prayer "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet"
Furthermore, Obama gave a shout-out to John McCain who never talked about "my Muslim faith"
So what's your point.
My point is Obama isn't
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:37pm.
My point is Obama isn't Muslim, he is a Christian. And his not attending church on Sunday isn't unprecedented for a president.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslimfaith.asp
See below comment
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:41pm.
See below comment "true Christians"→ I know that
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:53pm.
Did Nixon acknowledge that Kennedy never mentioned his Bahai faith? No.
Why? because Nixon was a Quaker, and "my Bahai faith" would have felt foreign coming from his tongue.
Obama, on the other hand, had to be reminded that, for purposes of Stephanopolous' interview, he was a Christian.
Loblaw, I might be wrong about you, but try saying out loud "I love my husband"
Now, loblaw, do you need somebody to remind you "You mean your wife?"
Out of context the "my Muslim
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:10pm.
Out of context the "my Muslim faith" looks bad. But if you read the interview before that comment it is clear what he is talking about.
→ I saw the interview
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:18pm.
I was shocked that it rolled so easily from his tongue.
So, you love your husband?
Exactly. Never, in
Submitted by sablegsd on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:07pm.
Exactly. Never, in discussing my faith, did I "slip" and say "my muslim faith."They weren't talking about
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:45pm.
They weren't talking about his Christian faith, they were talking about those claiming that Obama was Muslim.
True christians
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:37pm.
Obama promotes the homosexual agenda (Romans 1:27) He supports abortion (Jer 4:5 & Isaiah 44:2) He supports ground zero mosque, bows to every foreign leader, rejects Israel, and says "those who cling to guns and religion" (which religion I wonder?) (Isaiah 5:20) And the media can't understand why some are skeptical When he claims to be a 'Christian'So people who support the
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:57pm.
So people who support the "homosexual agenda" can't be Christians? Politics and religion don't mix, especially in America. Religion is private and doesn't belong in politics or policy.
Jesus said to go unto all
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:01pm.
Jesus said to go unto all nations proclaiming the gospel. If the bible which is to be the infallible word of god Teaches us that homosexuality is a sin then you tell me Should a Christian promote what is contradictory to his faith?Jesus never mentions
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:20pm.
Jesus never mentions homosexuality. And the bible teaches a lot of things, and has a lot of laws some of which include homosexuality, but there are more laws in the bible about what foods are unclean to you. Yet I don't hear Christian proclaiming that shelfish, camels, lizards, pork, etc. should also be outlawed. Or the other laws the bible has that we don't practice today.
I watched a documentry yesterday called "For the Bible Tells Me So" you should watch it.
→ loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:32pm.
If you knew anything about the Bible, you'd understand why shellfish, lizards, and pork are acceptable foods to the Christian.
Looks to me like you've done a lot of cherrypicking if you have never read about the changes to kosher.
There is, however, no new law in the NT that says homosexuality is now an accepted practice.
Romans 1:27 Also men leaving
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:46pm.
Romans 1:27 "Also men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error." I cor 6:9,10 - "don't you know that those who do wrong will have NO share in the kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshippers, adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals......none of these will have a share in the kingdom of god." And you reference old levitical laws that were done away with after the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Galatians) this is what Paul rebuked Peter for. He was tempted to following Jewish dietary laws and Paul rebuked him for it (gelatins 2:11) A Christian should know this. No? But to be fair Obama isn't the only person who proclaims christianity when it is convenient and then follow upon their own path when it isn't!So if "none of these will
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:49pm.
So if "none of these will have a share in the kingdom of god" why do you care? The bible, or any other religious texts has no place when deciding laws, plain and simple.
→ loblaw pivots
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:53pm.
And suddenly, your source of authority (Bible) for your argument is declared invalid, by you.
Typical logic when a liberal realizes he's gone down the wrong spider hole.
I care because I am a
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:53pm.
I care because I am a Christian. I wish to see no one condemed. God has given us, not only a wish to do right, but an obligation to tell the truth so that those on the road to hell can change and share in eternal life. Plain and simple.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Good question
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:00pm.
I'm concerned that a Man that is proclaiming to be a christian is not only promoting an agenda contrary to his supposed faith but is trying to enforce that contradiction on the rest of us (abortion through health care) (legalizing of gay marriage) and I don't want to see anyone miss out on their share of the kingdom of God. "Jesus said I am THE way THE Truth and THE life and No man cometh unto God but by Me" - John 14:6 I hope and pray that they will see the error of their way and repent and receive salvation. That is what any Christian should want IMOBut it is only contrary to
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:43pm.
But it is only contrary to your beliefs, and your interpretation of the bible there are some Christians and churches that support gays. Ones religious beliefs has no place in public policy.
a person can't just flip a
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:44pm.
a person can't just flip a switch to exclude their faith if they become public official...
its woven into a persons being...
officials use their values when judging issues and making legislative decisions, and values come from some sort of religion - even athiests and agnostics have their own religion...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Bob, you're misinformed.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:21am.
You say that the Bible doesn't say what it says, and that Jesus didn't address what He personally addressed. Please do some research before making such statements as you've made again.
And there's a difference between "supporting gays" and affirming homosexuality. If a church, or an individual, affirms that which God calls sinful, that church, or individual, is suspect.
That's why Obama's use of Christianity as a prop is so troubling. The man is on record as saying he thinks there are "many paths" to God, when Jesus has declared He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Christ. In Obama's view, Calvary was the debacle of the ages, and God is a fool for orchestrating it.
Bob, what do you propose that those of us who are Christians do with regard to public policy? Should we just stay in church, and leave public policy to the secularists? Our faith had better inform public policy, or else public policy will be shaped by people with no moral foundation whatsoever.
--Mike
The bible says homosexuality
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 12:50pm.
The bible says homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death, Jesus never mentions it, now you can prove me wrong and give me a verse where Jesus mentions homosexuals, but you can't.
The fact is there are "many paths" to God, Christians, Jews, Muslims all believe in one God, the same God, and in each of those religions there are many sects, and many different ways people worship. There are also religions with many Gods that worship there Gods in completely different ways than the monotheism.
In regard to public policy Christians should treat others they way they would want to be treated. That is think, if someone with a different religious view than mine was in public office making laws based off of their religion would I object. Your faith should inform you how to live your life, not how others live theirs. The idea that people who aren't religious aren't moral is flat wrong.
For the 500th time, Christians do not worship allah.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 12:58pm.
But you apparently think "it's just a name."
You are wrong.
Read the Koran, it has all
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 4:44pm.
Read the Koran, it has all the same characters as the Old and New Testament, it is the same God.
That's amazingly uninformed.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:15pm.
Allah is the proper name of a false deity worshiped by Islam. It is not the name of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. It is not the name of the deity Who spoke to Moses from the burning bush. And it is not the name of Jesus Christ, nor of the Holy Spirit, because the god of Islam is not Trinitarian.
Before suggesting that others "read the Koran," you might want to have at least a passing familiarity with it your own self. And, for that matter, at least a passing familiarity with the Bible.
--Mike
No. That's amazingly
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:59pm.
No. That's amazingly uninformed. The story of Abraham almost sacrificing his son Issac is in the Koran, page 315 in the penguin classic edition translated by N.J. Dawood. Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Joesph, Noah, Jonah, Jesus, Mary, Job, Solomon all are in the Koran.
I have read the Koran, and the Old and New Testament I have a familiarity with them all.
No, you haven't read any of those.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:52am.
Not for comprehension, at least.
Just because the Koran plagiarizes the Bible doesn't make the Koran valid. The Koran teaches, at its fundamentals, the assimilation or death of anyone who does not buy into what the Koran is selling.
--Mike
Unlike the bible which says
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 4:33pm.
Unlike the bible which says Homosexuals should be put to death, or two people who commit adultry be put to death. Or Numbers 15:32-36 which says: And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Hey Mikey.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 4:44pm.
Don't forget. Talk real nice to the troll and you will win him over with your winning personality. You and your buddy hydrodynDM is so much better that us goobs that treat trolls like the stupid losers they are.
You go Mikey. Tell Dead Zippers how reasonable you are compared to ruffians like me. That'll sure do the trick.
bob lob.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 5:25pm.
This is one event happened about 3,000 years ago...
HINT: All the killings mentioned in the Bible are against a group of people (person) at a PARTICULAR time in history and in a named location.
moslems have been at war EVERY SINGLE DAY for 1,400 years.
They kill ANYONE at ANYTIME at ANYPLACE.
Big difference.
moslems can use high tech equipment too.
You Didn't Build That.
Another indication you're not reading the Bible, Bob...
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:17pm.
...at least not for comprehension.
There are a great number of capital offenses in the Old Testament, all of which were superseded by the New Testament. That includes acts of sexual sin.
John 1:17 "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
What a blessing it that we, in this day and age, can live in God's grace.
--Mike
So then why, when arguing
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:45pm.
So then why, when arguing against gay marriage to Christian's point to Leviticus? That is kind of my point, why pick out gay marriage but not, adultry, or taking the lord's name in vain, or picking up sticks on the sabbath?
→ loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:07pm.
You're being selective.
The laws for Christians doing work on the Sabbath changed with the words Jesus spoke on the subject. Same with Adultery.
Get saved, and then come back to discuss scripture.
I am being selective because
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:49pm.
I am being selective because people who use the bible as their reasoning for being against gay marriage are being selective.
Just hopeless
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 7:06pm.
.
I'm rubber and your glue....
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 7:14pm.
I'm rubber and your glue....
No, you're not rubber, you're just plain old sh!t
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 4:41pm.
Typical of your kind, though... the fervent non-believer who knows more than the believers.
And you still can't leave it alone.
A few things.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:36pm.
1) A variety of verses in both Testaments specify what is, and what is not, acceptable sexual conduct. Same-sex activity is particular identified as sinful throughout Scripture, and Jesus specifically identified heterosexuality as the exclusive, God-ordained method of sexual interaction, more specifically through the marriage relationship. Jesus didn't say in the Gospels "Hey, don't go being a homosexual," but He did (to borrow an old song lyric) eliminate the negative by accentuating the positive. And that "negative" includes heterosexual adultery and fornication as well as sexual deviances. This isn't difficult stuff, actually.
2) The fact, Bob, is that there is one way to God--through a salvific relationship with Jesus Christ. He said so Himself. If you have a problem with that, argue with Him. Again, if the "many paths" nonsense were true, Calvary would be the ultimate screw-up, and God wouldn't be worth worshiping. Do you think someone should worship a deity who sacrifices his only child, with all the while there being lots of other "paths" by which one can get to that deity, making that sacrifice not only unnecessary, but (pardon the pun) overkill?
3) The irreligious have only their own, personal, fleeting, subjective "morality" with which to work, Bob. And since morality is at its core objective, there's not really such a thing as "subjective morality." Why, Bob, an air bubble to your brain could change your "subjective morality" in a snap, as could a well-placed blow from a ball-peen hammer. Surely you're not building your entire life on such a sandy foundation, are you, Bob?
--Mike
If you want to believe in God
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:24pm.
If you want to believe in God go ahead it does not bother me. It does however bother me when people try to use relgion to decide the laws of America. Why do you care if gays get married, how does this effect your life? Just because you think it is a sin, or an abomination because it is in the bible, a lot of things are in the bible why pick out the few versus about homosexuality. It says in the bible the homosexuals should be put to death, should this also be a law?
The fact, Mike, is that there are/have been thousands of ways to God(s). "So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869." Ricky Gervais http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/
Since when has being religious equal being moral? Morality and being religious aren't exclusive otherwise religious leaders wouldn't be caught in scandals. I am a moral person, though I don't believe in God.
bob loblaw:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:37pm.
There you go being logical again!
It isn't enough for man people that folks are religious. They must be the right brand of religion. Shop at the wrong franchise and you're dead wrong.
Several years ago there was a great creation myth skid on the Al Franken Radio Show. One person portrayed "Pat Robertson," another a Blackfoot Chief. Hilarious and it made a great point.
Morals and religion are, of course, two different things. Sometimes they meet - sometimes they don't.
Are you familiar with "Liars for Jesus?" Quite interesting...
I am not familiar with
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:49pm.
I am not familiar with "liars for Jesus".
"Liars for Jesus"
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:18pm.
is a very interesting book and a first rate website: www.liarsforjesus.com.
Capt. UnderPantz couldn't handle reading her chapters about the Tripoli Treaty...
Aww. Fwankie has Veet on the brain.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 4:55pm.
Wazzamatter fwankie? Crushies? Tell your twin bobbiiz about your collection of lies while you are on the subject of how you can't stop thinking about the Veet, crushies, luvluvz, heartymakers, fwankie luz teh Veet. Talkies about him nonztopz duz himz.
44. As to offshore drilling, if that were such a great idea why are 68,000,000 acres waiting to be explored with no takers? --- Debunked >> WSJ - The 'Idle' Oil Field Fallacy
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 12:25pm.
Capt. UnderPants
“I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#new#ixzz1DTO3j5fj
“38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-extensive-folks.html#ixzz1DTPuMxVw
- Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha!
PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.
Does heredity influence how many DD-214 moons of Mars can dance on Capt. UnderPantZ' pinhead?
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 12:50pm.
Your source is an opinion piece written by Red Cavaney, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute , the trade association that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.
Warren Buffet said it best: "Don't ask your barber if you need a haircut."
If you had a brain, you'd also understand the issue is that the holders of those leases are not spending the money to explore them.
Of course, Duh Gov'Nuh's windfall profits tax on Alaskan oil companies has discouraged them for operating in that state - but you wouldn't understand that, either.
Awwwww. Pivate Bill Wilson LIES again. Doubles down.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 1:53pm.
The proven 144 time liar whines about the credentials of the actual knowledgeble people. How cute. Poor little sissyboy liar thinks he can open up a discussion on his lie here. WRONG sissyboy. The article proves you lied. You wanna discuss it. Go where you belong.
I don't discuss your LIES. I am here to prove you LIE. Over and Over.
Now hurt my feelings and call me names for proving you lie cuz that really hurts little sissy that still won't try to dispel the truth slap on a single one of his proven lies. You call the big bad word bully that proves you lied some names. Ok? It really hurts someone that is telling the truth to be called names for telling the truth. It hurts bad little sissyboy. Please mister, don't call me no more names for pointing out the truth. I will stop proving you lie now. I will honest.
Bing: 68,000,000 acres oil leftiest lies
Bing: j frank wilson sissy site:newsbusters.org
Bing: j frank wilson lies site:newsbusters.org
By the way everybody.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 2:09pm.
The sissy fwankie won't answer up for his lies so the articles I link to are aging out. The WSJ article there is now hidden behind a subscription wall. Simply search for the name of the article and the authors name on google for open copies. The article puts a wicked smackdown on the sissy that probably never took the 5 minutes out of his day to see what a wicked smackdown he got. Otherwise, he would not still be trying to double down. Sissies that won't answer up for their lies have problems thinking. It is why they depend on liberal lie sites to get their info. yummy yummy liberal propaganda. Fwankie luz it.
You go sissy. Keep repeating your lie. That will shake the tree of truth right down to it's roots.
Now, please go on. You were saying something about your lie to a guy that is not here to discuss your lies. I believe that was it. Go on sissy. Tell us more.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
143 now fwankie. Call the word bully a name for documenting your every lie. It hurtz him so bad.
Capt. UnerPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 9:16pm.
Happily, even you don't have to depend on an aged PR handout from an oil company flack.
Of a more recent vintage:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/01/13/13greenwire-two-thirds-of-federal-oil-and-gas-drilling-per-13123.html
However, this has been the situation for some time:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184/ns/us_news-environment/
This article explains how oil companies can benefit from holding leases and never spend a dime to explore them.
Whoops. Fwankie LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 1:08am.
Both of those links REFUTE him. What kind of idiot is stupid enough to link to articles that REFUTE what he says?
A 143 time liar. That's who.
What a joke this idiot fwankie is.
Please fwankie. No more names. You is wicked smart. Really. You link to articles that prove you lie. Wicked smart Fwankie. Just wicked.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again. Right through his putrid teeth.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 9:26am.
Oil-Drilling Boom Under Way
Rig Count Doubles in U.S. as Companies, Landowners Tap New Crude Sources
CUERO, Texas—Oil-drilling activity in the U.S. has accelerated to a pace not seen in a generation as energy companies, oilfield contractors and landowners rush to exploit newly profitable sources of crude.
The number of rigs aiming for oil in the U.S. is the highest since at least 1987, according to Baker Hughes Inc. The 818 rigs tallied by the oilfield-service company last week are nearly double last year's count and about 10 times the number that were drilling for oil in the late 1990s.
While the drilling surge is unlikely to yield enough crude to alter the global oil-supply picture, analysts say the new activity, centered on so-called unconventional reservoirs, could greatly boost domestic oil production and help offset declining output in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
~
Please Fwankie. Don't hurt my feelings with insults no more. Please. I promise to stop telling the truth. Honest. I will stop. Please. I will stop pointing out your every lie if you stop calling me names.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/23/2011 - 4:19pm.
Typical deflection. You're wrong and won't admit it, so you try to confuse by writing about something else.
Does heredity determine how many DD-219 Mars' moons can dance on Capt. UnderPantz' pinhead?
Finally, Puddinhead, a truth in a post by you---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 3:17am.
Puddinhead wilson describing his very own style: You're wrong and won't admit it, so you try to confuse by writing about something else. 'Bout time you owned up, putz.→ loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:23pm.
Loblaw, meet J. Frank Wilson.
Now you're familiar.
Of course it bothers you.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:54am.
You wouldn't be so energized to defend a defenseless point of view if it didn't bother you.
And that's a good thing.
If Ricky Gervais is inspiring you, there's trouble.
--Mike
Wrong Bob-we are a Republic
Submitted by herc0 on Tue, 02/22/2011 - 12:25pm.
Read up on it. It is a lot different than a Democracy. And this country was founded on a belief system in morality for without it a Republic cannot stand.
We are all sinners which stops us from judging their behavior as one that we pronounce hell to them, which isn't our deal and no christian should ever pass judgment upon them. But woe unto us when we call wrong right, and right wrong.
Stating it is wrong is not passing judgment (the great lie being passed around is the opposite) upon that wrong any more than calling a thief a criminal. if we were to pass judgment upon that theif, like to put them in jail spiritually, we are wrong as christians.
If you are ever in my neck of
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:09pm.
If you are ever in my neck of the woods (Oklahoma) visit us at Keefeton Assembly of God. I'll buy you lunch and we can talk about it.loblaw, Although the four
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:37pm.
loblaw,
Although the four Gospels contain no specific statement by Jesus against homosexual behavior, nor any examples of His meeting and dealing with a homosexual person, there is more than enough evidence from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John alone to conclude that the only form of sexual behavior Jesus endorsed was limited to the married state.
The writer of the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament gives this summary of both Old Testament and New Testament norms regarding marriage and various possible types of human sexual behavior:
Homosexuals have no marriage bed, and are an abomonation before the Lord God. Homosexuals are fornicators, and fornicators and adulteres well not enter into the Kingdom of God.
Jesus also said he came not to change the law of Moses, but to fulfill the law. He also said that till heaven and earth pass away, not a dot will pass from the law. That ensures that homosexuals are called out in the law.
You can say anything you want, that will not change the fact that homosexuals will not be allowed into heaven. A "Christian", who supports that behavior is condeming them to hell. If you are a Christian, you are obligated to tell the truth. Not hide it. Therefor, Christians do not support the homosexual agenda, nor same sex marriage, nor swinger parties...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
If it was so important to
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:17pm.
If it was so important to Jesus then why doesn't he mention it at least once. One of Jesus greatest teaching is about not judging others.
The bible doesn't apply when it comes to making laws in America, if it did it we would be a theocracy, but we are not we're a democracy. The bible should play no part in the debate for or against gay marriage. I would like someone to make the arguement against gay marriage, without using the bible.
Who decides what "christians" believe? Because Christians interpret and follow the bible many different ways, some use the bible to protest the funerals of soldiers killed in action, others use it to proclaim a natural disaster that kills many people as being sent from God for sins. To say that people who support gays, aren't "true Christians" is ludicris. The bible says that gays should be put to death, do "true Christians" also believe this?
→ loblaw, we don't care
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:25pm.
Your homosexuality isn't at issue here.
Your decision to reject the Bible isn't at issue here.
And if, as you say "The bible doesn't apply when it comes to making laws in America", why are you so worried about what the Bible does, or does not, teach.
We're not going to stone you for your homosexuality, and you know it.
The Muslims would
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:34pm.
The Muslims would stone you, no question about it. Don't bother trying to make nice to them. Their way is to kill unless you become like them, but that's their way, their way is death.
This is one of those things that God can forgive you if you kill in self-defense since it's in the Ten Commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Murder." So if a Muslim comes at you to kill you, kill him first.
(it was a mis-translation that turned it into "Thou Shalt Not Kill" which is vastly different from "Murder." Good people need not die so that evil may flourish.)
-Jon
incidentally we don't know
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:48pm.
incidentally we don't know everything Jesus said - the Bible is a recording of certain parts and stories about Christianity - it did not record everything Jesus said - but Jesus did say that the entire Bible is the word of God - and Paul condemns homosexuality in Corinthians
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
I'm not gay (not that there's
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:48pm.
I'm not gay (not that there's any thing wrong with that). I think it is wrong when people point to the bible as their arguement for or against an issue because that is a very slippery slope. But God says in the bible that gays should be put to death, are you not a "true Christian"?
So, loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:52pm.
You are willing to correct the record, without help from George Stephanopolous.
Maybe because unlike Obama's "my Muslim faith", "your homosexuality" sounds foreign to you.
That was much too easy, loblaw.
the new testament did away
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:50pm.
the new testament did away with all the old punishments - Jesus took all the punishment for us
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Marriage is the institution
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:39pm.
Marriage is the institution for the creation of life. Pro creation. When two homosexuals, of the same sex, are able to induce pregnancy in one of them, by the other...then we can talk. But untill a man knocks up a man or a woman knocks up a woman, its a mute question.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
So by that measure should two
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:53pm.
So by that measure should two people, male and female, who are unable to conceive also not be allowed to married? Seeing as they cannot create life.
And if marriage is an institution what about divorce? isn't divorce against what the bible says? Doesn't divorce degrade the institution of marriage? Should we make divorce against the law?
If a woman cannot conceive,
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:04pm.
If a woman cannot conceive, one would not know untill after they were married. Divorce is not aginst biblical law. It is not encouraged. And it is premitted by Jesus himself for infidility.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
→ bass
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:11pm.
I hope you are successful in leading loblaw to The Lord. The time is short, and I hope he goes with us.
Would be nice Cool.
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:32pm.
Would be nice Cool.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
A woman could know if she
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:23pm.
A woman could know if she wasn't fertile before she was married. So what about divorce that isn't for infidility?
If she is a virgin, she will
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:30pm.
If she is a virgin, she will not know. She may be able to conceive, but may not beable to carry a child to birth. Some women are prone to miss carriage. The point being that a man cannot make another man "with child", no matter how hard they try. Not going to happen. Marriage is between a woman and a man simply because a woman and a man can start a natural family. Anything else is just a cheap attempt to mimic.
Moses allowed for divorce. Jesus defined the infidility clause. There you go.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
So yes or no, should people
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:12pm.
So yes or no, should people who can't conceive, and know it be allowed to get married? And if marriage is about having a baby what about people who get married and never have children, should they also not be allowed to get married?
If a man and a woman want to
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:24pm.
If a man and a woman want to get married, they should. If a man and a man want to get married, no. I have yet to see a stable family life style in a gay setting. People are allowed not to have children. Same sex couples shoud not be allowed to marry, with the same recogination as man and woman marriages, simply because they cannot have the same type of relationship.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
bassndude:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:48pm.
You wrote: "I have yet to see a stable family life style in a gay setting."
I have. Couples that have been together ten, fiften, twenty years. Two women who live on the corner a house down from us are going to have a baby next month. Those relationships are out there. Stable. Long-term.
And if marriage works, then wouldn't the availability of marriage strengthen and lengthen those relationships?
Equating "long-term" with "stable" can be dicey.
Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:40pm.
Unless you're in that house on the corner, living with them, you don't know how "stable" the relationship is. Why endorse deviancy?
And even more so, why endorse bringing a child into that household? Talk about starting a child off with two strikes...
--Mike
Mikr Bratton:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:04pm.
Any measure "can" be dicey. You're spltting hairs to avoid the obvious. After a couple has been together a dozen years or so, I call that stable.
I don't have to live with them to know how long they've been together.
You don't see gay folks get pregnant and then live together or get married. The relationship comes first. You don't see gay folks getting many abortions, either. Can't say that about all straight people, now can you?
How many straight people cheat on their spouse? Lie? Steal?
By most measures approximately half the marriages in the US end in divorce. That is not a well functioning institution, now is it?
I don't share your bias that i'ts deviancy. If two people love each other and want to live together and raise a child, that's a wonderful thing and I'm all for it.
Funny how the right wing nutz are scared to death that the Muslim religion may have an influence in Egypt, yet so many of them think our country's laws should have a Christian influence. Remember the letter the gentleman in Iran wrote President Bush? I would agree with him - the two are alike in many ways.
~Priceless
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:08pm.
You don't see gay folks get pregnent and then live together or get married. The relationship comes first.
The fact that they can't get each other pregnant might have a little something to do with that. They can, however, give each other AIDS. Yup, dat's some warm fuzzy lovin' in a stable relationship, alright.
Wretched Brunette:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:41pm.
AIDS, HIV and STD's are hardly limited to gay folks. But you already knew that - didn't you?
Just as "gay sex" techniques or practices are hardly limited to gay people. Straight people get kinky, too.
Of course, so many right wing nutz don't want public information about birth control to be readily available. Yes, I know it's crazy - but that's the way it is.
~jane frank
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 5:47pm.
As usual, you used tired old liberal memes to elevate homosexual relationships and put down heterosexual ones. AIDS disproportionately affects the gay population in this country, and has ever since it made it's first appearance....in the gay community. Male homosexual relationships are notoriously casual and fleeting.
The only kind of sex that gay people can have is "kinky".
It's hilarious that you had to bring birth control into this just to make a tired liberal slam against conservatives. How weak.
~Why not?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:25pm.
Infertile couples and those who do not intend to have children are not trying to redefine marriage itself.
By the way, there's no "law" against gay people getting married. They can each marry one willing member of the opposite sex any time they like.
If a man and a woman want to
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:25pm.
If a man and a woman want to get married, they should. If a man and a man want to get married, no. I have yet to see a stable family life style in a gay setting. People are allowed not to have children. Same sex couples shoud not be allowed to marry, with the same recogination as man and woman marriages, simply because they cannot have the same type of relationship.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Most gay couples, don't have
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:46pm.
Most gay couples, don't have families of their own (gay adoption another issue). Your reasoning is anecdotal. There are stable and unstable gay and striaght couples.
→ bob
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:54pm.
Stable relationships are offensive to PETA, aren't they?
→ loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:32pm.
Your opinion that the insertion of the male member into the anal opening is natural, is still your opinion.
Doubtless, you can find millions who believe as you do, that rectal sex is natural. But that only makes it a shared opinion.
You're going way off on a tangent here, but no, Jesus said "except for infidelity".
bassndude:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:24pm.
That might depend on the age of the woman.
It would also not be true if she'd been married before - and discovered at that time she couldn't have children.
Some men can't have children. Should they not be allowed to marry?
Need a clarification*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:50pm.
Just to be sure of your meaning...
...some men can't have children....jfrankwilson
cajun2:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:53pm.
It isn't that hard to figure out. I didn't write "bear" - I wrote "have."
Some men are infertile. Should they not be allowed to marry? Should a sperm count be a condition of obtaining a marriage license?
~Argument against gay marriage without using the Bible
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:28pm.
I don't care to type this argument out for the umpteenth time so I'll mostly quote myself. Marriage as an institution is just so much window dressing when there is no chance of progeny. Since the dawn of human civilization, marriage is the formal structure society provides for mates. It formalizes their bond and legitimizes their offspring. Homosexuals will never be able to produce children with each other.
Now, I'm sure you'll want to go down the "no one has to have children" road. Well, if we didn't the human race would die out. And no one wants that, right? Bottom line, children are the future. Homosexuality precludes children, thereby precluding the future of the society they want to be accepted by.
This quote also goes to my contention that marriage is about children. #98 ~There is no such thingSubmitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:18am.
as uncharted territory. Homosexuality has been around for a long time*, and it's never worked. Divorce has been around a long time*, adultery has been around a long time*, single parent homes have been around a long time*, "open marriages" have been around a long time*.
*Read: thousands of years
The traditional family unit is traditional because that's what works best. Every society has been based on a family unit composed of a mother and father who are married because it's been proven to be the healthiest, most successful environment in which to raise children.
The sheer arrogance of liberals is astounding. You think you're "progressive"? You think you found something new? You reason like children, who think human history began with their own birth. You treat your heritage like children treat their food, throwing it carelessly to the floor because they have no concept of the work that went into providing it. In your childish self-absorption you think you're going to come up with something the stuffy old grown-ups never dreamed of, and it's going to work, dammit. Keep trying to make square wheels cuz the grown-ups round one is boring and conventional and unimaginative and bigoted against squares and triangles and octagons.
"Now, I'm sure you'll want to
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:35pm.
"Now, I'm sure you'll want to go down the "no one has to have children" road. Well, if we didn't the human race would die out". Yes, if no one had children the human race would die out, but this doesn't happen if gays can get married. But homosexuals make up a small percentage of the world, them being allowed the same rights as you and I have nothing to do with the human race "dying out".
Also, allowing gays to get married doesn't hinder the children of the future. Gays will be gay whether they are married or not. To use your own words Homosexuality has been around a long time, and will continue to be around in the future. Allowing gays to get married is about equality, about allowing them the same human rights you and I have.
Up until a few decades ago inter-racial marriage wasn't "traditional" but that has changed for the most part. I would define marriage as between two consentual adults.
gay marriage
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:39pm.
State issue. Federal government has no power to and should never distinguish between one group of citizens and another. At the federal level equal means equal - period. The states are another story.
→ Thank you loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:39pm.
You finally got to the "Being black is the same as being gay" canard.
Took you long enough!
Apparently you have no idea
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:49pm.
Apparently you have no idea how quotation works. When you use quotes than it means that is something a person said, this isn't a hard concept, but something you should definately try to understand.
→ No it doesn't
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:59pm.
I used the quotes to recognize that you are making the same argument that others have made.
The quotes are appropriate.
Can I try? You think Gays
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:21pm.
Can I try? You think Gays shouldn't be allow to get married because "God hates fags".
Wow that is easy, and lazy.
→ No, loblow
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 12:12am.
You did make homosexuality analogous to being black.
I said nothing about God hating anybody.
No. I made the point that
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 1:32am.
No. I made the point that "interacial marriage" (this is something I actually said, notice the quotes) wasn't traditional marriage decades ago.
To use your own words: "I used the quotes to recognize that you are making the same argument that others have made." People have used that arguement "God hates fags", stop attributing quotes to me that I have not said.
→ Don't worry, loblaw
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 1:43am.
If you can't be the champion of Gay Civil Rights without comparing them to African Americans, who am I to criticize your typically liberal approach.
You want to gather what you consider to be your cobbled constituency of like grievances, not caring if either group has a problem with the comparison, and charge ahead as their champion.
If you equate Dr. King with Perez Hilton, that's your opinion.
Rave on.
I am comparing inter-racial
Submitted by bob loblaw on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:29am.
I am comparing inter-racial marriage that wasn't traditional decades ago, to gay marriage not being traditional today. I am not the one comparing African Americans civil rights, to gay civil rights, your the one that has brought up African Americans not me. Inter-racial marriage means more than black and white, it can mean different races, and religion. At least you didn't misuse quotes this time.
Have to lock in this stupid.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:47am.
Inter-racial marriage can mean different religion?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We Are The 53%
→ Thanks, Denny
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:59am.
He is a laugh every post.
~Gotcha
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:13pm.
"Gays will be gay whether they are married or not"
Exactly. Homosexuality doesn't have a thing to do with marriage. Gays are the ones trying to insert themselves into something that doesn't concern them.
Marriage isn't a human right. Ask all the lonely single women out there who are still waiting to have a guy pop the question.
→ Now ya' done it, Bru
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:15pm.
He's going to tell the story about how he can't visit his husband in the hospital.
I believe gays want to get
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:27pm.
I believe gays want to get married so they can have the same rights spouses have, not to insert themselves into something.
All the "lonely single women" (see how quotation works cool arrow) have the right to get married, just because they aren't married doesn't mean they don't have the right to get married.
Single women and the right to marraige
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:38pm.
Yes, and gay men are allowed to get married, but not to another man.
bob loblaw:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:57pm.
You are correct. A marriage that ends in divorce doesn't threaten my marriage.
And gays folks getting married doesn't threaten my marriage either.
Not to mention that mighty few gay people get abortions.
the human body is not
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:56pm.
the human body is not designed for gay sex no matter how much you try to rationalize it - and therefore its practice is unhealthy no matter how much you try to deny it - and any unhealthy behavior in a community affects the entire community in an unhealthy manner
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
TruthMonger:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:09am.
"Gay sex" has to do with the participants, not with the acts themselves. Gay folks don't do anything straight folks don't do.
Not to get too graphic here, but it wasn't that long ago that Texas tried to outlaw sodomy between two men but keep it legal between a man and a woman.
Personally, I'dl like to keep the Texas Rangers (both law enforcement and the baseball team) out of my bedroom.
j frank - its not healthy for
Submitted by TruthMonger on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:31pm.
j frank - its not healthy for straight people to have certain perversions of sex either - so its just another brick in the wall of community disease...
i'm not talking aout outlawing gay sex - i'm simply affirming that it's unhealthy - not natural - and just one person in a community being unhealthy makes the entire community unhealthy
approving gay sex or perverted straight sex flies in the face of communities trying to improve civic health in all aspects physical and mental...
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Please loblaw...are you a
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:49pm.
Please loblaw...are you a Christian?
Acts 10:15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happned 3 times. And Peter understood what he was told.
God said we can eat anything we wish. With the death and resurection of Jesus, we no longer needed an alter for sacrifice's, a wall seperating us from God nor are we prohibited from eating shelfish, camels, lizards or pork.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
"Jesus never mentions homosexuality"
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:59pm.
Whether or not this is true is debatable http://www.helium.com/debates/97019-did-jesus-mention-homosexuality, but I do know that Jesus spoke many times of a union between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. He is NOT NEUTRAL on the subject.
It is generally accepted knowledge (if you're a "Big-C" Christian anyway) that homosexual acts are sinful. I know that there are many that would challenge that concept, but unfortunately for them, this little inconvenient truth has been taught since the apostolic era.
Even before, come to think of it. If you do not, or cannot, or will not believe that, then you should re-evaluate your faith in Christianity. Remember that no one is forcing anyone to be Christian. It is man's free will to do as he chooses, even if what he chooses to do is sinful, but at least be honest and at least acknowledge that homosexual acts are sinful according to generally accepted Christian theology.
That doesn't mean the sinner should be condemned, or discriminated unjustly. We're all sinners after all, and so it is not our place to judge. Only one entity has the rightful authority to make that call.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
we cant judge souls but we
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:58pm.
we cant judge souls but we can and must judge peoples actions Christian or not - for the sake of civilization
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Have to disagree with you on
Submitted by sablegsd on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:03pm.
Have to disagree with you on the attending church thing. I am a Christian, I believe Jesus is my savior and our father in heaven, Jehovah, loves us. I do not attend church because of anxiety, crowd issues, but I pray every day and I know God knows what's in my heart. That being said, obama doesn't strike me as being a Christian. The hate lectures he attended for 20 years don't speak of God's love to me. He is also way to enamored of islam to discount that he is not a muslim. The cattle call to bounce your face off a mat is the prettiest sound in the world? YUCK. That means more to you than the sound of your children's voices? Something wrong with him.Georgie, you simpering little
Submitted by Van Halen on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:54pm.
Georgie, you simpering little Liberal twit -
Why don't you get in Obama's face and demand he denounce the policies that have brought ruin to the American economy, American foreign policy, and your own beloved Democrat Party?
Bachman should have said she
Submitted by kg on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:49pm.
Bachman should have said she would...right after he denounced the treatment of herself and Palin.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
The "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" thing must be HOT at the WH!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:55pm.
Obama must be really hot under the collar at the perception (gosh, wonder why, Barry....could it be you siding with islamists all the time?) that not only is Obama not a Christian, he is more than likely foreign born and ineligible to hold his office.
Why else would this be the JournOlist Meme of The Week? Hammer Republicans, incessantly, about whether they (1) believe it (2) try to get them to put it on the record, and (3) get them to call us, their constituents, stupid for not believing Obama's little story.
I'll believe that he's a natural born citizen, just as soon as he produces his long form birth certficate, and his college records, including any applications for financial aid. Until then, I'm not buying, because I know Obama lies like a rug.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
→ True, Blonde
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:03pm.
Back in the day, I was more than willing to (at least) try to prove to a woman I was indeed, a man.
Here's Obama, unwilling to prove to the electorate he woos, that he fulfills the qualifications of being an American President.
He might be like Billy Tipton, an able big band leader, but secretly, not a man.
And Cool Arrow opens Birtherism, Chapter 4.....WOW!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:23pm.
I never thought of that.
Perhaps Barry started out as Barbara Sotero, a la Chaz Bono?
How exciting....a whole new chapter in the birther saga.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
→ Couldn't help it
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:30pm.
But I did allow that he migtht be an "able" leader.
I'm just saying, there came a time, after several years of employment at the same company, that they asked for a copy of my birth certificate.
I didn't refuse to show it.
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:21am.
And neither has Obama. He has produced the same authenticated certificate which is issued to every other citizen born in Hawaii and has been routinely accepted by employers such as yours. You seem to be demanding something more. Why?
Jer
CA: I looked up Billy
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:56am.
CA:
I looked up Billy Tipton and found a link that once again proves you can find anything on the interwebs. Note the IP address name, the title of the web page, then scroll down about 3/4 of the way for the Tipton reference. Bonus is the reference to Louis Farrakhan!
→ Thanks, strat
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:04am.
Singalong with Louis. I never figured Farrakhan to be a gender bender.
Add to the list
Submitted by dirtydan64 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:44pm.
His little postage size card to sign up for the Military at the post office on his 18th birthday that would provide alot of info, that is if he actually did follow the Law of the land and fill out his name, addy and phone number at the time right !! Surely he was in the states between flight to and from INdonesia, LOL !!!
Hey Steffy, why don't you put
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:55pm.
Hey Steffy, why don't you put the same question to your old boss? C'mon, you don't have the gnads to take a liberal to task? I am sure Hillary would be more than happy to take that question. After all it was her campaign that brought the whole birth thing up.
Also, last that I heard we still have 1st Amendment rights to free speech. There is no law preventing people from questioning where your Messiah, Odumbo, was born.
But then again you are nothing but a libturd strategist posing as a "journalist". We expect nothing but attacks and smears against Republicans and Conservatives from you.
Scoob,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:36pm.
LOL - Steffi obviously has a very short memory.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
this is the best the
Submitted by TruthMonger on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:02pm.
this is the best the re-election office can do? how about does Bachmann hate puppies...?
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Indefensible
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:08pm.
How do you defend that which is indefensible? For those of you in Rio Linda, that means "incapable of being defended against criticism or denial" because there's no proof to show for it.
His actions alone define him to be a Muslim. He said (before being corrected by the same Snuffy) his Muslim faith on his show. He defends the Muslim Bro'hood. He could care less(and has shown that) about dissidents in Iran and agrees with the Sharia government of beating them. He has hidden, through the expense of MILLIONS of dollars, his records. ALL of them.
The list is far longer than what we have here.
George, get that brown spot off your nose. You already lost the argument.
-Jon
The question to George should
Submitted by phryingphish on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:14pm.
The question to George should be:
We can all forget the past. So, George, will you state right here and now that in the future you will not beat you wife?
The press does not need to
Submitted by jkwtrading on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:38pm.
The press does not need to speculate nor need to have people make any suggestions to Obama birth or christianity..Obama can prove the birth if he wants so ask him for the proof rather than make up the logic or speculate.
"How can you just sit there and not declare it?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:14pm.
What a shameless little hussy he is.
I saw this whole "interview", and this idiotic question just came flying out of the blue. I couldn't believe he did that.
Notice that when Bachmann
Submitted by StillRight on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:22pm.
Notice that when Bachmann brings up the Sitimulus failure Georgie quickly turns to something totally unrelated, Lady Gaga. Georgie can't let the big O suffer the big embarassment of a huge failure!
Oh and Gorgie, amybe when the big O starts acting like a Christian we may believe if it is sincere. If he started supporting Israel instead of undermining and abandoning Israel. If he started going to a real church, not a black liberation "church". If he fought against radical muslims instead of supporting them etc. etc.
What is it with Liberals?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:23pm.
What is it with Liberals and their incessant need to denounce something or someone? They not only feel the need to denounce people or things themselves, but they feel that someone else should take part in denouncing as well. It's almost obsessive. It makes me wonder if they define themselves by how often, or how well, they demean others.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Here we go again. It takes
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:30pm.
Here we go again. It takes more than just being a "Citizen of the United States" to be President.
The media hypers are clearly worried about the eligibility topic.
The only thing any of them ever have to offer is dissing those who ask questions - especially tough ones.
Wait, isn't that the very root of their profession?
Hypocrites. The. Lot. Of. Them.
Obama is a liar - one way or the other - and this issue proves it. Either he lied his hind end of in his book, right down to who his father is, or he isn't eligible. It is one or the other.
Taking him "at his word" means that he isn't eligible. It means his father was a British subject and thus Obama junior was born with Dual Citizenship no matter where he was born. It really is that simple. Maybe his real father is someone else - making him eligible. If that is the case, then the whole fabrication that is his life story is exposed as a lie.
Regardless, Obama is a liar and that is what is at stake. When it al comes out, media types know their reputations take as large a blow as Soetro's does. They are doing everything possible to protect their own butts. I will say the exact same thing about weak knee Republicans too.
Either our Constitution has been assaulted or our intelligence. It might even be both. I know this much, I have stood firm on this from the start and have been called every name in the book because of it. Heck, I even got slammed in my local newspaper, by name, over it. But you know what?
I am still standing with the same questions and those questions remain unanswered. My kids will not have to look back and ask me why I didn't try to do something. They are witnessing otherwise, daily. The other kids, and their parents, have to see my One Big A$$ Mistake America declaration every day. The "obamamobile", as the schoolkids call it, goes to school twice a day, everyday.
So many thought that Americans would just sit down, shut up and watch this eligibility factor fade away. I said at the start it wouldn;t and it isn't going away. There is a revival of our Constitution happening all across this country and this is a part of it. The Liberty movement marches forward and it will eventually roll over all the lies, manipulation and abuses inflicted upon us.
Freemen will always take up arms, and the best ammunition called words, when Liberty is threatened enough. The time is now because Enough is Enough.
Citizen? Not important anymore
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:23pm.
Even if he were a citizen of the US(and I don't even think he's naturalized let alone natural born), it doesn't matter. That's not important anymore and here's the simple reason why:
His acts(ALL OF THEM!!!) are Anti-American to the core.....and then some.
As many of us have seen from the beginning of knowing of his existence, destruction of this country has been his goal all along. You can't BE a citizen of this country and proceed to destroy it from within. That's called being a traitor and worse, and in his case, the manchurian candidate.
Someone (most likely liberal or ill-educated) would say "Destroy this country?? Oh don't be silly!" Socialism, which he has been pushing ever since being exposed by the video of the conversation with Joe the Plumber, does not help ANY country. Socialism is spending other people's money until it runs out. Oh wait, we already ran out(hence trillions in debt), where are we now? I defy anyone to tell me we are doing so much better than we were 2-4 years ago. I include 4 because that's when the Dems took congress before Bush's 2nd term ended. That's where the voters wanted to teach the Republicans a lesson.
How's that lesson going now, you dumbass voters?? You are the real reasons we are where we are now!
You are right, Ashrak, the Constitution has been assaulted in so many ways, it's on life support. It will only get better if the people act and they act NOW to enforce it and run the traitors and usurpers out of the country.
I'm still waiting to see that happen in Congress.
-Jon
Is Bill Maher somehow influenced by Republicans too???
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:53pm.
I don't see Republican politicians going on MSM declaring President Obama is a muslim. If people believe Obama is a muslim it is because of his actions, the press for badgering the subject, or from Obama's books. What about Bill Maher saying he didn't believe Obama was a Christian? Is Bill Maher somehow influenced by Republicans too??? Glenn Davis of Mediaite wrote, "the belief Maher apparently holds – that Obama isn’t actually a Christian, but merely pretends to be one to keep up appearances for the sake of his political career" .
This has such a smell of 'JournoList'ish tactics all over it. This is the MSM's new coordinated attack on Republican politicians who are too stupid to defend themselves.
"Journalistic" (being waaaay generous here) A.D.D...
Submitted by Pilgrim1949 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:57pm.
Who else could be up to his earlobes into some weighty discussion of some complex issue on the economy and then blurt out:
So, do you like puppies?
Then later on, in another debate regarding the intricacies of Middle East diplomacy, suddenly ask:
So, who was your favorite in last night's American Idol competition?
Thus is the state of what pompously imagines itself to be serious journalism.
And they scratch their collective vacuous crania in bewilderment at their plummeting popularity.
"Ye canne change the laws of physics....." but some politicians believe that with the right legislation you can pretend they don't really apply to your own pet projects...
Loss of respect
Submitted by grammajane on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:58pm.
Am really sick of these Republicans wasting their time on the bias,radical media. They receive no respect but, keep going back for more. Can't understand why this continues. If the msm is so obsessed with the birth and religion, why not bring in the messiah and ask him directly?
It's not for her or anyone to say
Submitted by nkviking75 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:10pm.
Bachmann had it right the first time. It's not for her to say whether Obama is a Christian. She may have an opinion on the matter, but I think it would be best for her to keep it to herself.
Without debating Obama's citizenship, I support the bills which I understand have been drafted in a few states requiring a presidential candidate to present proof that he/she meets the "natural born citizen" requirement in the US Constitution. I don't understand why it wasn't enforced before.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
His father was muslim, so he
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:47pm.
His father was muslim, so he therefore is muslim. I'm sure the baptismal certificate is right there next to the birth certificate and the college transcripts. We do know that obama is socialist idiot.
Perhaps Mrs. Bachmann
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:01pm.
can't find her birth certificate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_tea_party_bachmann
→ Mr. Last Kiss
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:07pm.
Even your grasp of the inane is slipping.
~In other news
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:15pm.
j. frank continues his slow swirl.
O Wrathful One
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:00am.
You are the best.
But next time don't forget the warning please.
We Are The 53%
~Hey, buddy
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 6:37pm.
I keep missing you when you visit us from the future.
Sorry Beautiful
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 7:28am.
Brunette.
I will be there Sunday night. But for now, SNOWBOARDING!!!!!!
We Are The 53%
Cool Arrow:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:29pm.
You missed the obvious. Karl Rove and Bull O'Really? claim the entire birthier nonsense was dreamed up by the Democratic Party to make the GNoP look bad.
So - Mrs. Bachmann is just doing what the Democrats tell her. Can't you figure that out?
No I didn't, Frankie
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:38pm.
It's a well known fact that Hillary Clinton's camp was first to bring up the birth certificate issue.
As I've already said, in this thread (I think), His place of birth bothers me much less than his vision for America.
Try to keep up Frank.
Private Bill Wilson is a birther.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 1:19pm.
A McCain birther.
113. - The McCain birther. -- You claim "When McCain BC and citizenship came up he cleared it up." Nope. It was done for him by his friends in the United States Senate.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
Capt. UnderPantz:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:16pm.
Yes, I recall your private bill nonsense. You'd never head of such a thing - claimed it didn't exist. Then you became an instand expert (and we've seen what "3 days'" research on a topic does for you!).
You were stupid enough to claim "Resolutions do not carry the force of law." Then why bother passing themt? In point of fact, there is no real difference between a bill and a joint resolution.
Have you ever seen a doctor about your obsession with minutiae?
Does heredity influence just how many DD-214 Mars’ moons can dance on the head of a pin?
Keep ranting about trifling details to your hearts’ content – although it’s a poor substitute for facts.
How’s your research coming into Duh Gov’Nuh’s gas contracts? No answer since Feb. 6th…
Puddinhead wilson, please continue with your---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 7:24pm.
tripe, your lying, and especially your support for ol' bobble law.
It is humorous.
Pathetic, true, but humorous, nonetheless.
Thank you for the opportunity to use the word "nonetheless" three times; as your continued brain-rot ridden asides are, while weak, nonetheless, a shining example of how a troll can do no more than spout talking points by parroting bullshit lies.
Your insipid shots at those who call you out for your lies by trying to turn the tables with your posted copy-cat attempts are no more than dreck, and merely demonstrate all the more how truly bereft you are of originality.
MD
matthew dean:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:01pm.
Capt. UnderPantz wrote: "Resolutions do not carry the force of law."
Go ahead and prove him right - he needs the help.
Before I can be called out on my lies I'd have to lie. Capt. UnderPantz can rant and rave - he can't back it up with facts.
Capt. UnderPants
“I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#new#ixzz1DTO3j5fj
“38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-extensive-folks.html#ixzz1DTPuMxVw
- Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha!
PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.
~jane frank
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:12pm.
You can flounce your way across the boards till Kingdom come, but you will never, ever, ever have one tiny fraction of the courage, fortitude, and integrity possessed by The Vet.
Wretched Brunette:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:30pm.
Keep cheerleading - the Old Animal Doc needs all the help he can get.
He doesn't have facts. He does have the Peanut Gallery behind him. I'm sure he takes great comfort from that.
fwankie
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:35pm.
What do you have behind you? A bunch of b.s. Never responded to the facts about the Reagan tax cuts. Facts get in the way?!
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:51am.
Fwankie the 143 time LIAR: He doesn't have facts.
Fwankie is stupid about the honesty of others because he lies so much. He does not understand the concept. When I wrote this in Lie 113 ---
The Senate passed a resolution. Resolutions do not carry the force of law.
Yeah, that Resolutions do not carry the force of law sentence came nearly verbatim from the link.
Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:19pm.
You are a lying sack of shit. You can continue with your crap until Obama becomes something other than a worthless suit and it will change NOTHING, you moron, because your lies are documented - over and over again. You are a fool, a dork, and a dick. And that is on your best day. Putz.matthewdean:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:28pm.
No surprise. Lacking facts, your default position is insults and profanity.
My "lies" haven't been documented at all. Assertions aren't facts - and you don't have any.
Are you lying now
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:44pm.
Or where you lying then. Or do you know?
Keep on lying, Puddinhead,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 12:22am.
as you continue to underscore not only your unfamiliarity with anything resembling the truth OR facts, but you actively underline how dishonest you are. As far as language, there ARE no words to describe sufficiently what I really think of you and how truly disgusting you are. There are few things on earth more revolting than a liar.Poor Fwankie the liar.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:56am.
Fwankie the Busted: My "lies" haven't been documented at all.
Whoopsies. Fwankie got cold busted again trying to double down on another lie. Too bad so sad for the 143 time Liar.
matthew
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:29pm.
The words just flew out of your keyboard and gave me one of the most enjoyable posts I've read in a long time here. I'm so sick of these ignorant trolls spreading their crap around and not admitting when they've been proven wrong.
Time for the gloves to come off.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:42am.
j. fwankie: Capt. UnderPantz wrote: "Resolutions do not carry the force of law." Go ahead and prove him right - he needs the help. ... he can't back it up with facts.
From my link above that Fwankie did not bother to check ---
Simple Resolutions
Also from my link above ---
Text of S. Res. 511 [110th]: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizenS. Res. --- That means SIMPLE RESOLUTION boys and girls.
Why is it every time Fwankie demands proof from me, he ends up looking even bigger the ass than he already is.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:34am.
j. frank wilson: You were stupid enough to claim "Resolutions do not carry the force of law." Then why bother passing themt? In point of fact, there is no real difference between a bill and a joint resolution.
Whoopsies. Private Bill Wilson is lying again. JOINT Resolutions ARE signed by the President. We were never discussing that. The House passed a SIMPLE Resolution -
S. Res. 511 [110th]: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen
That is what the S stands for there. SIMPLE. SIMPLE resolutions do not carry the force of law. Of course I linked to both the definitions of bills/resolutions/private bills and the McCain resolution in the Private Billl Wilson lie above.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 6:21pm.
The sissy that ran away for an entire year now demands an answer within minutes on his every post.
No answer since Feb. 6th…
We waited for you to come back for 12 months sissy. Didn't hear a single peep out of us did you?
Knocked down your attempt to refute #109 in the forum where is belongs. Knocked it down in less than 5 minutes when I finally found the time. You want to see your failure to double down on yet another lie. Go there where the lie was originally listed.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
Wow fwankie. That makes exactly ZERO of your lies you have proved to be telling the truth. The big puffy chested girlyman just ain't having no luck with the insults and chest puffing now is it?
You bravado might carry more weight if you were to actually disprove at least one of the 142 lies. Just one. One lie fwankie. Prove you were telling the truth just once. Please. I am so very sick of being right all the time fwankie.
Come on fwankie. Captain Underpantz is proving you lie again and again. Now what does that make you when the guy with the funny name makes you look like the biggest fool here? Yep, it just don't work does it? Only someone that is wrong can be made to look foolish. So you keep desperately searching for something to lay at the feet of the guy that PROVES YOU LIE AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Come on little sissy. You is the big man with the name calling. PROVE I LIED ABOUT YOU.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:42pm.
Updated LIE #113 with 2 more subpoints from today. 113.5 and 113.6
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
It does get so lonely when trolls can't dispel one single one of their lies. Boy they can get boisterous can't they though? Dispel a lie. Yeah, not so much. Puff out their chest and hurl lots of bluster. Prove The Vet wrong. Yeah, sorry, so sad, can't. Busy, got something to do for 6 months. Get back to uze Veet. Promizez.
Capt. UnderPantZ:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:55pm.
Capt. UnderPants
“I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#new#ixzz1DTO3j5fj
“38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-extensive-folks.html#ixzz1DTPuMxVw
- Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha!
PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.
Owwies. That hurts Fwankie.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:10pm.
Maybe if you post that a few more times and random points during the day, I will finally stop proving you lie over and over.
Did someone giggle? You. You in the back. Did you giggle? No. I heard a distinct snort and giggle. Don't deny it. Really. It is working. I am thinking of stopping. 143 lies and I can't do it no more because fwankie keeps posting this... Hey, now you are openly laughing. It is not funny. Really. Fwankie is really putting the hurt on m... Well, I will not go on if everyone keeps laughing. All right. All right. I am going home if no one is gonna take me serious....
Go on Fwankie. You keep posting that over and over in the desperate hope it will make me stop. You go little lying sissy that won't face up to his lies. It is working. Really. I iz so mad right now that you keep posting that. Ohhhhhhh. Yes. I will stop Fwankie. I will stop now. You got me.
How stupid is frankie?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:06am.
It links to a story that talks about what was said in the story in which it is posting.
dee dee dee
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:14am.
"WTF?" - Duh Gov'Nuh
The GOP needs to dismiss this
Submitted by Free Thinker on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:25pm.
The GOP needs to dismiss this question and focus on policy matters that are important in this country. Just like Michelle did by bringing up the failed stimulus, although she waited far too long in my opinion. If a news reporter keeps badgering with the question I would state there are other people waiting to talk with me about important issues, say good-bye, take the microphone off, and leave.
Tru Dat, Free
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:29pm.
Americans have chosen Obama as their leader. This speaks volumes about how far America has fallen in its beliefs concerning liberty.
That bothers me a whole lot more than his place of birth.
Where you are born is related
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:53pm.
Where you are born is related to your allegiance to property. I would happily be the President of Kenya and burn it to the ground without a thought. It's not my Country.
Just as Obama would happily destroy the light of Western Civilization because he was born in Islamic Mombasa, Kenya. Oh and his grand dad was killed by white people(brits). And that's just the beginning.
True Free and Cool*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:11pm.
This is what Stephie is doing while Rome burns
CA,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:23pm.
an article on Liberty using Egypt and Democracy as examples that has a lot of truth about the misunderstandings most of Americans have about what our government is supposed to be about. - from American Thinker
I LOVE how Bachmann answered
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:48pm.
I LOVE how Bachmann answered this. "I think we should take the President at his word." Which puts the onus on him, and since he hasn't proved jack squat, answers his question as not proven.
In case Bachmann gets a chance to read this, I just wanted to say nice job and thank you.
We all know he wasn't born in the US. The lack of evidence is evidencethat there is no evidence. It's simple trial law.
And while you may be more concerned that he's a muslim raised Communist rather than born here- Can you tell me anyone like Obama that was born here?
There is a reason for that provision. Loyalty. Ownership. Pride. None of which Obama possesses in regards to America. He would burn it to ash if it made his Communists dreams come true.
→ Right on Thoreau
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 4:57pm.
Barring any willingness to provide proof of citizenship, we should take him at his word to the same extent we believe him when he tells O'Reilly he is not a socialist.
A man is forced to keep his word when nobody else will take it.
Actions speak louder than words
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:24pm.
His actions are speaking far louder than his words and even though someone might say "we should take him at his word," his record to date is that his word is worth a bucket of tobacco spit in a cowboy bar. He proves that time and time again, even as recently as this week with that farce of a press conference.
Where does the line get drawn? His actions are killing this country, and the country is turning a blind eye because people are saying "give him a chance."
-Jon
Was that before or after he badgered a Democrat
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:05pm.
Was that before or after he badgered a Democrat to denounce the Democrats' crusade/witch hunt/fishing expedition against Darrell Issa?
Oh, wait......
Obama's Faith Should Be Questioned
Submitted by Blue Collar Todd on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:52pm.
Liberalism can turn anyone into a Christian since truth and morality are relative to them. That is how we get pro-choice and pro-gay rights “Christians”. Obama’s “Christian” faith is incoherent. Liberals can turn Buddhists and Muslims into their version of Christianity. The faith of Obama should be questioned.
→ Right U Are, Blue Collar
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:57pm.
Liberalsim can, with a straight face, proclaim that Islam is secular.
I've heard it with my own ears.
Now, Cool...you know that
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 12:50am.
according to Dan the Man, one's "ears" are not a bona fide source--in other words, unless you can link it, it didn't happen. Generally, I'm not quite so strict, but, in this case I'm a little skeptical that "Liberalism" embraces the unqualified view about Islam you have attributed to it. As such, do you have anything to cite verifying what you heard?
Jer
People can scoff at the "birther" issue all they want...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:02pm.
...but at the end of the day, Obama's possible lack of eligibility might very well be the only thing standing between him and the destruction of our nation.
And no, I'm not kidding.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Lets see George
Submitted by donabernathy on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:12pm.
1.4 Billion Muslims say Obama is a Muslim.... I'll take them at their word for it....
roflmao
Right Dave. It really is that serious.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:36pm.
Mathews just had this clip on his show and targetted Bachmann again.
I bet Tingles sure would like to have the proof that even he knows he can't bring to bear.
Here is why they are doing this - they want who they view to be Establishment Republicians to reign in the party members.
What is hilarious, is that just prior to that, Tingles was commenting on how Boehner can;t control the TEA party Freshman! And he was PRAISING that fact.
Eve Rove was present, and Tingles couldn't resist finding a disagreement with him on something he agrees with him about. Alas, Rovehas it wrong too. He said Obama could bring the documents. Rove talks tall, buthe can't prove that either.
Hilariously, as George said "Citizen", Tingles says "Native Born citizen". When it comes right down to it, they know the deal is Natural Born and they hedge saying it - in case proof comes.
'Hollister' just succeeded in a rehearing and might just have managed to force recusal of the "Second Amendment Liar" Sotomayor and "the government can decide what you ea"t Kagan from participation.
Attacks on Thomas, "birther" stuff all over the lefty news, all I can say is -
Nervousness is growing.
The DNC Made Goldwater go to the Supreme Court.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:34pm.
Getting Obama to officially document his minimum requirements is turnabout. What goes around comes around and because Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona Territory before it became as state the Democrats threw him off of many ballots and were only kept from throwing him off of all of the ballots by the US Supreme Court. Making Obama positively prove his birth is a minimal amount of good payback.
I still think that it is possible that Obama's mother as a seventeen year-old with a powerful Muslim ex-husband may just have done something silly to secure her custody claim on baby Obama. Back in 1961 there was no genetic testing and if she put down Richard Nixon as the father on the birth certificate the courts would at first accept it. She may have put Walt Disney or Hugh Hefner on the birth certificate as the baby's father, a President Hefner in the Whitehouse.
Of course in 1961 a mother could travel internationally with her passport and her new born baby's birth certificate. In 1961 the custom officials did not keep records of a woman with her baby, even from Kenya. Get her baby into the United State, shave a couple of months off of the baby's age, send a request to the newspapers to print a birth announcement and submit a request for a certificate of live birth and you have a one person conspiracy requiring half an afternoon.
Stephanopoulos is sweating bullets so perhaps he knows something. In any case Obama should be making a short trip to the Supreme Court before he gets back on the ballot for 2012 or else nothing he has done has been legal.
Avitar...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:03am.
http://Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case. McCain's eligibility for the Presidency has also been questioned by some, but again, such objections have yet to rise to the level of a formal action in the courts. [emphasis added]
source [see #15]
I haven't located any evidence suggesting the question of Goldwater's eligibility in 1964 was anything other than a minor issue which was never vigorously pursued. Do you have any sources to cite backing up your claim?
Thanks,
Jer
WOW!!! Check this out - DRUDGE
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:48pm.
SCOTUS to open conference on Obama's eligibility as POTUS!!!
Coool
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 12:33am.
Arrrow! : ]
Chill, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 2:12am.
The birthers went nuts over the same thing a couple of years ago. I doubt it will prove to be of any more significance now than it did then.
Jer
You too, Boudin. :-)
→ Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 4:48pm.
I just want Hillary Clinton to get her day in court.
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 8:27pm.
I'll gladly stipulate that the birther nut, Philip Berg, is a Democrat. Now, do you honestly want to peddle the laughable notion--or even remotely imply--that such fact somehow renders the birther movement largely and essentially a Democratic phenomenon? I know you don't. It's a modestly interesting detail that's fun for the anti-Obama folks to chuckle over. Heck, maybe it will be a Jeopardy answer ten years from now. But, beyond that, Berg's role and his party affiliation is a meaningless side show.
Jer
→ No, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 8:36pm.
Are you going to tell me the electorate has no right to a verification of qualification of any Presidential Candidate?
Are you saying this is yet another law that should be ignored?
Mind if I park a mobile home in your yard?
Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:05pm.
If it has a sofa, fridge, and a big screen I won't even charge you rent.
Jer
Obama could cut the legs out
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 8:37pm.
Obama could cut the legs out from under all the birthers in an instant by releasing his original birth certificate.
The fact that he won't take that simple step is what fuels speculation about his true birthplace.
→ 26CX
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 8:50pm.
It's another of those situations where liberals love the cute solution rather than the logical or, in this case, legal.
After some years at my current place of employment, all employees were suddenly required to produce our birth certificates. I don't know of any who refused.
Cool
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:01pm.
It's another one of those situations where liberals don't think they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us do.
I'm not a birther, but I do think that if Obama had nothing to hide, he'd release his original birth certificate.
Cool...you previously mentioned the anecdote about your
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:03pm.
employer requesting birth certificates and your not refusing to show it. Apparently you missed my response:
http://#109 Cool...
#109 Cool...Submitted by Jer on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 2:21am.
And neither has Obama. He has produced the same authenticated certificate which is issued to every other citizen born in Hawaii and has been routinely accepted by employers such as yours. You seem to be demanding something more. Why?
Jer
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/02/17/george-stephanopoulos-badgers-michele-bachmann-denounce-birthers-def#ixzz1ESMczV7L
Jer
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:31pm.
Are you saying that birth certificates and certifications of live birth are equivalent documents?
(edit: I meant to write "certifications of live birth")
26CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:33pm.
I have no idea. I do know what the authenticated birth certificate issued to individuals born in Hawaii looks like. Ask Denny Crane. He has one. And it looks precisely like the one Obama has already produced. And there's not an employer in America who wouldn't accept it and honor it--unless it's Obama presenting his and the employer is a birther.
Jer
There's a difference, Jer.
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:47pm.
Employers want a birth certificate to show that you are a US citizen, not where you were actually born.
While where you were actually born isn't a requirement for employment, it is a factor in being qualified to be President of the United States. The document provided by Obama doesn't answer the question about being qualified to be be President of the United States.
If Obama would only release his original birth certificate showing which hospital in Hawaii he was born in, who the doctor was and so one, the question about his place of birth would be moot.
Here's the loophole that Obama needs to prove isn't applicable to stop the birthers:
“[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”
I still feel that Obama's refusal to produce his original birth certificate is giving birthers the fuel to keep going.
"I have no idea" . lol. My
Submitted by mastersofdeceit on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 3:53am.
"I have no idea" .
lol. My Uncle was stationed at Pearl Harbor in 1964. His wife gave birth to my cousin Kenny in Hawaii the same year. My cousin Kenny can produce a piece of paper with the words "Birth Certificate" on it. Why can't Obama?
He has.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 7:27am.
Ask Denny Crane if his Hawaiian certificate [it's either his or his wife's] is substantially identical to the one produced by Obama. It is. And then look at Cousin Kenny's document again to see if it is likewise the same in all material respects. It will be.
Next question.
Jer
Jer, wow nice one...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 2:07pm.
This is the one I get linked to most of the time
Looks like the certificate number on yours was photoshopped in... May need to ask BK about that...
However it does NOT look like this.
The hunt goes on....
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Me I'm a Passport guy, I just want to know how he got into Pakeestan, at a time when no Israelis or Americans were allowed to visit.
Stratman made a great point, here
All that without a WND link ;-)
You Didn't Build That.
Passport guy myself
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 2:44pm.
Bingo
Well looky looky.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 3:42pm.
However it does NOT look like this.
Well looky looky. The name of the doctor that smacked that guys butt is right there on the birth certificate.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:12pm.
Photoshopped certificate number? Not a chance. Even the looniest of the birthers have given up pushing that nonsense.
So the Hawaiian COLB you link contains more info than the Hawaiian COLB released by Obama. Again, my recollection is that the one Denny posted about last year in MissNinja's forum was virtually the same as Obama's. Maybe we can prevail upon him to clarify the issue. Also, the FLA newspaper [I believe it was the St. Petersburg Times]--which did extensive reporting on the topic--noted that the document possessed by the Hawaiian-born employee in its office was identical to Obama's.
Since you are a "Passport guy", perhaps this will help address your concerns.
No WND link? Where do you think that Abercrombie stuff you quoted came from? That's right...straight from the fiction writers at WND. However, as far as I know there may not be a long form certificate per se. There could be a single instrument, but it may also be a collection of material or data entries which comprise the original source birth information.
Jer
Heh heh Not a chance Jer,
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:24pm.
the 1961... should read 61 on the bc that are recorded at the time.
The passport issue is about what Pakistani sez not America.
You Didn't Build That.
ucw...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:32pm.
I stand corrected. Apparently there are still some loony birthers pushing that nonsense. ;-)
Jer
Why you dragging me into this, Jer?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 11:07pm.
And it's my daughters COLB, my wife was born in Japan.
The point is if you lose the original and have to get a replacement, they will give you what Obama produced. I don't know what he would have to do to get a copy of the long form. But both my daughters were born in Honolulu, (in this century) and thats what we got. A certified COLB. We were never given or asked if we would like the BC.
The give a COLB because that is a legal document that can be used for just about anything except proving birthers wrong I guess.
We Are The 53%
Denny...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:30am.
Sorry for dragging you into this donnybrook, bud. BTW, I meant to say the b/c was either yours, your wife's, one or both of your children's, or the family pet's. [Okay...I had actually concluded it was most likely your wife's--knowing she is Japanese but thinking she may have been born in Hawaii. I apologize for the error, and ask that you please amend your profile to include a complete family history and heritage, including certified copies of all relevant birth certificates (long form). ;-) ]
Seriously, thanks for the info.
Jer
OK Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 9:08pm.
I'll get right on that.
:-))
And just one more time for clarification, I don't know if I can get a copy of their long forms. Next time I'm in HI I will try to find out.
edit: I just checked the website, and I don't think I can.
We Are The 53%
Jer: A Certificate of Live
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:51pm.
Jer:
A Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) may be authenticated by the State but it is not a verification of a live, viable birth as with a physician-signed Birth Certificate. (mid-wives, nurse practitioners and maybe even physician assistants and doulas??? can verify live viable births today depending on the State nowadays)
Why offer a COLB? People were not always born in a hospital, and if born at home (or wherever) there was not always a physician to witness and verify the live viable birth. In order to not disenfranchise the newborn, a COLB was issued on the word of whomever applied for one.
As such, a COLB may have been obtained fraudulently without the State fact checking the claim(s).
Obama claims he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. Others have said the same who were around at the time of his birth. A physician-signed Birth Certificate would have been filled out and has been claimed as filled out.
Why does he have a COLB then? One reason is the claim about a fire that burned his original Birth Certificate, so, a COLB would be issued on demand from the person in its place. Why then all these monkeyshines with the people that claimed to have seen Obama's Birth Certificate or the Governor who foolishly said he was going to show the world it? Why spend a million dollars fighting to keep the record from being revealed?
Is Obama hiding something, is he just playing the American Public for fools, or is it something else entirely? It's seems malicious for a presidential candidate to behave in this fashion whichever way it is.
~COLB
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 3:17pm.
I had my last three children at home and all of them have a COLB. All you need to get one is proof of pregnancy (note from a dr.) and the signature of a witness to the birth (other than the mother).
What irked me is that I couldn't get one if I went to the Registrar's office with the baby and the dr.'s note, but my husband could get one based on the note and his word that he'd witnessed the birth. He didn't even need to show up with a baby!
Our eldest was born at a hospital, but I'm pretty sure that she just has a COLB, too. I'll have to rummage around and see.
The thing about Obama is that no one has ever come forward and said that they knew him and his family at the time of birth and can verify that he was born in Hawaii. My children may only have a COLB, but dozens of acquaintances can verify that they were born here.
Bru... No so fast Hawaii's governor sez this:
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 3:51pm.
"Little Barry, that's what we called him," Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune while "recalling his days with Obama Sr. and his future wife, Ann Dunham, at the University of Hawaii."
Expect the Abercrombie fuss to just sort of fade away.
You Didn't Build That.
~Yeah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:37pm.
What's funny is that when the guy was pressed he admitted that his earliest memory of little Barry was when he played T-ball. LOL
Evans said that he asked Abercrombie what his first memory was of Barack Obama as a child and that Abercrombie told him he recalled seeing Obama playing in the T-Ball league when he was 5 or 6 years old.
“What about before that,” asked Evans, to which Abercrombie responded, ” I don’t really remember much before that,” a retort described by Evans as “very odd”.
Oh good grief guys...I know
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:41pm.
Oh good grief guys...I know I've seen at least one contemporaneous account ot the type you say doesn't exist. I guess I'll have to hunt it down. NEVER satisfied.
Jer
~That would be great, Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 5:20pm.
Good luck. :-D
26CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:23pm.
The birthers will never be satisfied. I'm sure you've read the comments here in the past proclaiming that whatever Obama did would be a presumptive fraud...a conspiracy involving the officials of the State of Hawaii birth and death records department and whoever else may be necessary to perpetuate the deception. Then there is the NL207/Willis_Lee_Johnson faction who acknowledge the probability of a Hawaiian birth but believe Obama is disqualified due to the "natural born citizen" Constitutional issue since his father was not a U.S. citizen but a dual Kenyan and British citizen.
It's similar to the "Obama the Muslim" narrative. Whatever he says is and will be unconvincing...whatever documentation he shows is and will be summarily dismissed. The objective is to deligitimize the President, and NOTHING will deter them from that mission.
We'll see if the new Republican House majority has the stones to open public hearings on the issue. Don't bet on it. The leadership is already on record as saying they believe Obama was born in Hawaii and is a Christian.
Jer
Those are just excuses.
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:35pm.
If Obama released the original birth certificate showing the place of birth, delivering doctor's name, etc., with the appropriate official seal, that would be the end of it.
As it stands now, he's just giving birthers an excuse to keep going.
Ignoring The 800 lb Gorilla In The Room
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 9:58pm.
The President has deligitimized himself in spending an alledged million dollars or more in preventing his Birth Certificate made public.
What is his gain, primary and secondary?
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 11:18pm.
"No Person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president of the united states.Natural born citizens are those born in a country to parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens.
Obama Sr. was not an American citizen, thus Jr. is not a natural born citizen. Jr. was not around when the adoption of the constitution was to become the law of this land. There is a differnce in citizen and natural born for the requirement for such office. This is the facts. He is guilty of high crimes and should be prosecuted." (sic) source The birthers insisted there was no COLB and then when it was produced spent thousands vainly trying to prove it was a photoshopped forgery. The contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements were explained away with byzantine conspiracy claims. The verifications by the officials at the Department of Records and the Republican Governor of Hawaii were rejected as lies. If the towel is eventually tossed in on the Kenyan birth nonsense, the skeptics will merely double down on the natural born citizen "controversy".. They will never be satisfied. Jer sorry for the formatting screw-up...not sure why this happens
Jer: We seem to be talking
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 2:14am.
Jer:
We seem to be talking at cross purposes.
My primary interest is the mystery of why only a COLB, why produce a COLB if a Birth Certificate is available (since a BC trumps a COLB based on what I posted previously on authentication versus verification), and why an expensive and ugly fight to keep a document (actually a set of documents) from being made public (especially when at one point the reason floated was a fire destroyed the original BC at a government building).
You seem to want to litigate the birther aspect, which is a potential issue but not the focus of my inquiries. You did not address my thoughts except to ask for a link to the amount Obama has spent on attorneys. Must there be an itemized record made public? Can legal fees for Obama's documentation fights be blended in with other duties by the attorneys? Is the money trail that simple to pull out of the internet always? Your biased Mother Jones does not explain all away without a little strawman action. Do not expect something you yourself do not deliver on or that may not be possible via my keyboard. If these are your refutations to the entirety of my questions, Jer. then I will surely be dissappointed in you.
But back to your birther post this evening. What is important is the law(s) at the time of Obama's birth, both Federal and the State of Hawaii, plus any amendments thereafter that explicitly deal with the time of his birth. What were these laws? A great deal has been lost to this discussion with the updating of NewsBusters. There were some formidable discussions with a close look at law of the day.
I recall reading that at the time of Obama's birth, his mother had reached the age of majority but did not reside in the Hawaii or the US for a requisite number of months before leaving the country. This, according to what I read that claimed was the law at that time, was complicated by the pregnancy in that the mother's failure to reside in the US long enough before leaving and becoming pregnant outside the US would complicate the citizenship of the child. There might have been the added complication of the foreign citizenship of the father which triggered this rule as well, but I don't recall precisely. Since I've rarely encountered this issue, I am left to assume it is not accurate, for others would surely bring it up if true. Right?
Anyways, Obama has undoubtedly used legal counsel on either multiple discrete occassions or retained someone in a sustained timeframe, or both, concerning concealment of multiple personal records and this must be costly. These attorneys are brutally expensive and will have racked up a hefty bill over the past three years. So the question is, do you think Obama has not spent someone's money by the fistful, even if it not $1M, to conceal personal documents?
Put another way, in the context of my inqueries, who spends money on attorneys concerning the publicizing of documentation?
Obama's already presented a COLB, so he isn't bashfull. What could be the issue with presenting his BC? He's lazy and didn't want to apply and pay the fee? Yeah, right. He has toadies to do the grunt work. No, Jer, unless the original is lost to fire (or whatever) and can no longer be obtained to make a copy, most likely Obama is either hiding something or playing a twisted game.
Strat ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:24am.
In all likelyhood, Obama is not even a US Citizen, much less a natural born citizen, owing not to the circumstances of his birth, but rather to the actions of his anti-American mother who appears to have endorsed her second husband, Lelo Soetoro, in adopting Barack at age 6 under Indonesian Law and Obama's later reputed use of an Indonesian passport to travel abroad, specifically to Pakistan after he reached age of majority. I suspect that one of the reasons his collegiate record remains a secret is the citizenship he was claiming as a student. My suspicions are that it was NOT 100% pure, bonafide US.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:52am.
"My primary interest is the mystery of why only a COLB, why produce a COLB if a Birth Certificate is available (since a BC trumps a COLB based on what I posted previously on authentication versus verification), and why an expensive and ugly fight to keep a document (actually a set of documents) from being made public (especially when at one point the reason floated was a fire destroyed the original BC at a government building)."
Have you ever seen your original birth records? I haven't seen mine; but for years I have had in my possession a "Certificate of Birth" issued by the state of Tennessee substantially similar to the Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth" produced by Obama. An individual's original birth records are not public documents in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. Obama did however--in addition to releasing his COLB--take the extraordinary step of authorizing a review of his original records by independent examiners, all of whom confirmed he was indeed born when and where he had always stated. Frankly, I'm not familiar with the "fire" story. But it smacks of just more inflammatory screeches from the execrable WND. If the litigation is "ugly", it is because its complexion is a reflection of the vein-bulging frenzy the monomaniacal birthers have whipped themselves into. And if it is expensive, it is due to the stunning litigiousness of the plaintiffs who have made a mockery of the legal system [and is the reason judges, of all political stripes, are fining the hell out of them]. You are the one who claimed, or at least adopted and repeated the assertion, that a million dollars had been spent by or on Obama's behalf to prevent disclosure of his birth certificate. As such, the onus is on you to support that claim. True, the "biased" Mother Jones article deconstructed core assumptions underpinning the "million dollars" allegation, but my primary reason for supplying the link was due to the fact the excerpt I quoted in my previous post was taken from the comment section of the MJ website.
Is there any chance you could present a hypothetical timeline--including projected dates, residences, temporary locales--concerning the mother of Obama prior to and after his birth? I have read extensive accounts regarding her background--written well before the birther controversy reached critical mass--and the notion she traveled to Kenya, gave birth to Obama, and then returned to Hawaii (while somewhere along the way an elaborate fraud was hatched and perpetrated) stands logic and credulity on their heads.
Finally, I brought up other dimensions of the "birther" controversy only to suggest the resolution of the certificate issue would not necessarily put an end to the matter. [See NL207's post immediately above for Exhibit "A".]
Jer
"Have you ever seen your
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:27am.
"Have you ever seen your original birth records? I haven't seen mine; but for years I have had in my possession a "Certificate of Birth" issued by the state of Tennessee"
You aren't a candidate for elective office that requires you be a 'natural born' citizen either!
NL...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:27pm.
The plaintiffs have to have standing. They also have to state a claim. They can't just make up crap or litigate by conjecture. What is their evidence of a Kenyan or non-Hawaiian birth?
The specific "natural born citizen" question which you have raised in the past is a separate Constitutional issue which even proof of a Hawaiian birth wouldn't be dispositive in Obama's case. Right?
Jer
The courts have taken an
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 4:58pm.
The courts have taken an asinine stance about who has standing to sue in this matter. They have narrowed the list of those with standing to the 50 Secretaries of State. Of course, Obama thinks there are 57 of these. I think the Founders would say that any voter elligible to cast a vote for the office of President of the United States has a stake in this matter, and thus, standing to demand Obama's bona fides. In fact, I think the Founders would be shocked and dismayed that this man, Obama, is now the President.
If a COLB is not a part of the proofs Obama needs to establish his qualifications for the office I would ask you, what is?
What are the precedents?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 5:52pm.
What are the precedents? What have past candidates been required to produce which Obama hasn't? What is the actionable factual basis of the claim against Obama---other than the well-established, judicially recognized "hey, we think he may be a Kenyan Muslim since he sure ain't one of us real Americans" averment?
And, you didn't answer my previous question. As I understand it, your principal objection isn't even related to his place of birth. It's his parentage and derivative citizenship. Correct?
Jer
Americans Believe In "Fair Is Fair"
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 6:42pm.
You mean the school records, the military records, the medical records and more that candidates have provided previously. Is that not precedence that Obama has failed to follow?
Here is where the attorneys live - haggling over the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law or process.
Every candidate is required to meet certain criteria of citizenship. Questions have been presented before and the Senate (I believe) has voted on the issue of citizenship for a candidate or two. (Goldwater, McCain??) Obama has technically provided evidence of citizenship with a COLB. So why the hubbub? Because the COLB is an inherently weak document compared to a physician signed BC. Obama, by his proxies, has refused to provide a BC (which has been claimed to exist), in fact actively concealing a variety of documents, mind you in compliance with law, but makes him appear to be crapping on the spirit of the law or process and the Public's reasonable expectation, backed by precedent, to examine certain documentation about the candidates credentials/life.
Failure to provide certain precendence-related documentation leads to suspicion, of which there is plenty to go around in Obama's case. His actions brought it upon himself.
These issues are extant and run deep in the citizens' thoughts, not quashed because the letter of the law was followed. If your premise were uniform, then why, for instance, return to the Dred Scott decision? For citizens, it was the spirit of the law which compelled the re-engagement of the letter of the law.
There are no precedents.
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:20pm.
There are no precedents. Obama is the first candidate to ever seek the Presidency who either was not a resident of these states at the adoption of the Constitution or who had a parent who was not an American Citizen and that includes Chester Arthur, whose father was a British subject at the time of Arthur's birth but became naturalized during Arthur''s minority and resided in the United States for the remainder of his life. Obama stands apart from the other 42 distinct Presidents, completely unique with regards to his citizenship origin.
As you well know, the Courts have never in the History of the United States ever been asked to rule on the constitutional eligibility of any person to hold the office of President. They are doing a crappy job. They have let this misbegotten, son-of-a-whore usurp the Presidency when it is likely he is not even a US citizen, much less any sort of natural born citizen.
"Have you ever seen your
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 5:59pm.
I hope you are not playing word games or semantic convolutions with me, Jer. First, I am talking about a singular document - a Birth Certificate (yes, it is a Certificate of Birth). I have a facsimile of my "original" Birth Certificate because I or my parents were issued one when I was a minor. Second, my "original" BC resides in a drawer in a government building in downtown Cleveland where I can obtain a certified, authorized, verified copy if need be. Third, my "original" birth records (note the plural like you wrote) are in the possesion of the family of the now deceased physician who delivered me. I can, if I want, read my actual "original" birth records and obtain a copy.
Birth records, including COLB's, BC's and physician charting, were not standardized identical items in all States at the time of Obama's birth. What is available in the State of Tennessee may be different than that in Hawaii, so your Tennessee document is a tangential point at best. Let's stick with what happens in Hawaii. the federal laws at that time, as well as any amendment to any law(s) that deal specifically with this area. Neither of us have delved deeper into this.
I have explained the differences between the COLB that Obama released and a physician signed BC. You have ignored this. The COLB may be authenticated and verified as a legal and proper document but it is NOT a BC. It may be used for similar purposes but it does NOT require verification the BC does in the manner I have written. As such, a COLB is inherently weak and more susceptible to fraud compared to a BC.
What records? As far as I recall, no one produced the "original" birth records, ie charting, from Obama's birth. If they had, I would not be debating this issue. AFAIK, no one but Obama is alive who was present at his birth. That does not mean he wasn't born in Hawaii, though. (Keep this point in mind when we get to your argument about WND's research on Obama's legal fees.) Using a COLB and a newspaper clipping does not verify with 100% accuracy the data. If there's more extraordinariness involved, lengths less likely to be needed if his BC had been released, then link it please.
The fire story explains why a COLB and not a BC. How could this be "inflammatory screeches" when it's favorable to the pro-Obama camp and not the birthers?
True, I made the assertion of a million dollars in legal fees. I can find no itemized record that supports this allegation (as I properly referred to it in my next post), though the WND article MAY be supportive. Neither you nor the heavily biased Mother Jones proved or disproved a thing. Remember my point about if no one but Obama himself who was present at his delivery is alive now -- does this disqualify Obama as being born in the hospital in Hawaii? Of course not, and neither do the arguments you and Mother Jones use - itemization - disqualify WND's research.
It is a "metaphysical certitude" that Obama, or other(s) have paid for legal counsel to protect the privacy of his records, including a BC (if it exists), and that the work done was handsomely paid for. Why would there necessarily be an itemized record available on the internet or available via "request" of the appropriate parties. The WND article MAY accurately depict the attorneys involved in this issue, and, the attorneys MAY also be doing other work for Obama, thereby lumping together the billing for all work done for Obama. Only their internal records (and Obama's bill) may show the itemization. Just because we aren't privy to the itemization does not mean large amounts of money (to most Americans) weren't spent in concealing Obama's records. It also means that a million dollars spent can not be proved at this time. The amount is conjecture and partially arbitrary, resulting in an essentially pleasantly sounding round number that is inconclusive and best not to quote as fact. Point taken, Jer, with qualifications.
No. It is beyond the scope and intent of my questions concerning the foreign birth issue. My question that intersects some of this area is, as I wrote already, the law, if there was such, concerning residence requirements upon reaching the age of maturity before leaving the US in the context of pregnancy and birth IN Hawaii. Neither have explored this issue, let alone discounted it as germain. I do not have any intention of researching it at this time.
What I am interested in is why a COLB and why fight the public disclosure of a variety of documents in Obama's life. Obama himself has deligitimized his own veracity, bringing suspicion upon himself, and rightly so. The previous presidential election had John F. Kerry concealing his records, one of which he finally disclosed AFTER the election - his college transcripts which showed he had approximately the same GPA as George W. Bush. Who was castigated as stupid and who was promoted as brilliant? Now we know the truth of why Kerry refused to release his transcripts. There is reason to believe Obama is doing the same for dubious reasons. It's the historical odds on favorite bet that Obama is hiding things he'd rather not expose, and not one just because of John F'n Kerry's concealment. Whether these are issues that would prompt a Constitutional crisis is but a subset of other potential outcomes that I think are more likely.
Again, if the original BC is not destroyed, there is no reason other than mischief to not release it (an official copy, of course) and then tell everybody to STFU. It's incredibly simple. But he hasn't. Why, Jer?
strat...While I digest your recent responses...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 7:07pm.
Here's a bit of satire which, imo, isn't far off the mark.
Jer
BTW...for those who have recently insisted it's only the 'liberal media' churning the birth issue and that Limbaugh and Hannity, for example, never bring it up, here's yet another instance of Limbaugh proving otherwise. Hannity has likewise referred to it on several occasions.
this satire breaks down after
Submitted by TruthMonger on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 7:57pm.
this satire breaks down after only a few lines - right after that part about the long form BC being released - but still i guess its necessary for liberals to have self-gratifying fantasy conversations with oneself to vindicate their multitude of erroneous positons
this conversation would better for the truthers and the wmd-ers...
and the limbaugh article is from july 2009 - got anything current?
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
TM...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:12pm.
I posted it merely to supplement my argument that NOTHING will ever satisfy those who are thoroughly invested in delegitimizing Obama. Whatever additional birth information may be revealed supporting an Hawaiian birth will merely generate more claims of fraud, conspiracy, and payoffs...and a shift in emphasis to the "natural born citizen" claim, and a ratcheting up of demands for a release of all education, financial aid, affirmative action, employment, residency and travel records--not only for Obama, but his mother, father and adoptive father as well.
Blonde will not be satisfied until he does all of that and more. None of his detractors will ever be satisfied no matter what is released.
Jer
WTF, Jer? Over.
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:16pm.
I don't give a rat's ass about his birth certificate.
I want to see his college admission papers.
WTF is your problem? You of all people ought to know better than to try to put words in my mouth.
I AM PISSED!
<EDIT> Don't you dare answer me via pm.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:40pm.
Check your PMs.
Jer
Answer me this, why is it
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:52pm.
Answer me this, why is it that when a woman says not to do something, men always do it? Or is that a liberal thing?
~Man thing
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:58pm.
You know, like that magical ability to tune out the frequency of your voice. I think that one kicks in on the way back down the aisle.
Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:33pm.
Heads up, it's kicks in when kids go through puberty too.
~Crap
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:56pm.
Cuz right now, they stiffen to attention. :-D
My two year old almost went into the street as we were coming out of church two weeks ago; I turned around just in time to see him on the curb. I said his name, and he stopped short, did an about-face, and trotted back to the sidewalk. He learned a long time ago that listening to Mommy and Daddy was the key to a blissful toddlerhood.
Bru
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:09pm.
Just keep in mind, no matter what they do/say/think as teens, it won't be as bad as it could be because your being such a great mom now. You're laying the foundation for good teens, even if they feel the need to express their teen angst.
BTW, my daughter, who didn't appreciate my rules or advice while in high school, is now angry at me because I don't call her enough. I never thought this day would come.
~Hahahahahahaha!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:30pm.
Just wait till she gets married and has her first baby, she'll discover a whole new appreciation for you.
I honestly think it's hard to have two grown women in the same house, having her own space took the tension out of the relationship. I experienced the same thing a liitle over a decade ago. You have lots of fun to look forward to with her.
Wrathful Bru
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:50pm.
Check your PM's!!!!! Where R U????
We Are The 53%
Well, Radical...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:06pm.
I guess because I am a pig and a troll.
oh, and there's also the fact that I was only kidding with Blonde. I always do what she tells me. If she says "No PM"...then there will be no PM.
Jer
→ Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 9:12pm.
We are not delegitimizing Obama. His fallen status is self-inflicted.
What you're doing is trying to make sense of your own opinion of him and outwardly concluding the Conservatives just won't give him a chance. Inwardly, you know better.
So, Cool...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 3:06am.
just which or whom of your fellow conservatives do you envision giving him that chance? The ones who agree he is a "son of a whore usurper" of the presidency, or those who agree he is a "smarmy, lyin', arrogant, phony, two-faced bosstid" or those who believe he is an "America hating stealth Muslim"...a "foreign born commie tyrant" who intends to suspend the Constitution...a "baby-killing racist" etc., etc.?
I guess I'm looking for a few more fair-minded conservatives like you, Cool.
Jer
Gee, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 3:44am.
Looks like not everybody loves the Bamster as much as you do.Please, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:26am.
Just give the smarmy, lyin' two-faced bosstid a chance. C'mon...you can do it. Just one! You'll feel so much better about yourself.
Jer
Granted, Jer, this is a conservative site,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:14pm.
and therefore liberals on these threads do look more ridiculous here when spouting their twaddle than they would, say, on a soapbox in Central Park; but that does not alter the fact that, based on the incompetence Obama has shown so far, liberals are either, blind, deaf, or just plain clueless in their continued adoring worship and support of the pinko pincus dorkus-commie elbow rubbing-socialistic leaning-socialist slanted-arrogant without viable reason to be-sniffling snuffling Africanus anus. Your turn.~*ducks*
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:54pm.
.
Calm down, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:58pm.
Just before responding to TM, I noticed your post to strat containing the following:I personally don't care about Obama's COLB or BC.
What I WANT to see is his college admission and financial aid request forms.
Because I truly believe that these will prove he claimed to have been foreign born, or a citizen of another country, applying for foreign aid. Either way, damning.
Obama is mere illusion. Until he proves otherwise, I don't believe anything about him. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Your closing remark, in particular, made it appear there was little hope you would ever consider Obama anything other than a colossal fraud. I apologize for apparently "over interpreting" your words and putting inappropriate ones in your mouth.
Jer
[Just kidding about checking your PMs].
well jer, apparently
Submitted by TruthMonger on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:17pm.
well jer, apparently according to your link the actual BC (not the COLB) is actually available - why don't they just release it - i think that will satisfy most birthers
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
not me Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:21pm.
I don't care who his mama was, who his daddy was, where he was born, what is his religion. All I care about is his ideology, corruption, and policies that are destroying our economy and creating the greatest divide amongst us since the 60's. I just want him gone and if the "birthers" can do that , praise to them.
Obama IS a colossal fraud,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:17pm.
among other things. Those of us who believe that have our reasons; and those who support the smarmy, lyin', arrogant, phony, two-faced bosstid, have their reasons for admiring, swooning over, sucking up to, and worshiping the plpossob LOTUS-TOTUS. Better them than me.Nicely done, Strat
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 7:53pm.
I personally don't care about Obama's COLB or BC.
What I WANT to see is his college admission and financial aid request forms.
Because I truly believe that these will prove he claimed to have been foreign born, or a citizen of another country, applying for foreign aid. Either way, damning.
Obama is mere illusion. Until he proves otherwise, I don't believe anything about him. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde: The COLB was the
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 10:16pm.
Blonde:
The COLB was the detail that sucked me into this charlie foxtrot of a thread. My inquery is encompasses several documents as listed in the WND link of Jer's above:
The COLB vs BC is interesting to me as a physician and has goes to the potential contrary disposition of Obama (if there is a BC in existence). The laws at the time concerning age of majority, residence and pregnancy is a potential issue which probably is not valide as I would think someone would have used IF they had standing to bring a case.
I do not care about his kindergarten records or baptism records as these are religious test issues which I find secondary to my primary concerns. Besides, what was he supposed to do, say "no" to his parent(s)?
The summary from his physician should be acceptable to all from either party, though you know how the Left badgered McCain over his abundant released records. I don't care if Obama got elephant syphillus on his visit to Pakistan as long as he was treated and gummas aren't taking over his brain. (ok, maybe I would care if he got VD from an elephant!)
Speaking of his trip to Pakistan, were private American citizen sightseekers allowed in Pakistan at the time of his trip? I have read it was legal, but it would be nice to have official verification.
It could be that his Indonesian school records, passport(s), Indonesian adoption records and American school records show foreign allegiances, for instance a dual citizenship that would require him denouncing before able to become president. If his adult records indicate a sole foreign citizenship, then it's a different ball of wax indeed. The damaging evidence most likely would be the academic records done so Obama could fleece aide money. Still, all this might make him out to be is a liar and a thief. Is there gold to be mined here to derail a second elected term? Possibly. Will it get him thrown out of office? I don't think it will be sufficient except for the caveat above.
I definitely would like to see his academic records, papers, and publishings since after graduating high school as these go to character and ideological content. This is where the gold probably waits to be mined. There's always a reason folks don't want things like this released and it rarely is because they don't want to appear too good. Even the thesis/doctorate/whatever of Michelle was sealed because, as it turned out, she is a hard Left malcontent, but we already gathered that from her "first time proud" slip up. this is where the Independents and the RINO's may be educated to stop supporting Obama.
I think Jer is wrong for the vast majority of people who have questions about Obama. By not releasing documents he has created problems concerning his veracity on any and all matters within. Releasing the documents will end, once and for all, the vast majority of people's questions. The issue then is whether people are satiated and move on or their fears are verified by what is found. That is what people on Jer's aisle are really worried about, not the miniscule fringe continuing to kvetch after foundational proof is shown.
@stratman:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:47am.
If Wing Nutz Daily wants to read Mr. Obama's Harvard Law Review articles, why doesn't it purchase copies for the time he attended that School? How can it claim they are not available if they were published? And if they were not published, they wouldn't be Harvard Law Review articles, would they?
One article Obama wrote while
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 3:38pm.
One article Obama wrote while in school, Columbia IIRC, has been available for a few months, at least that's when it first came to my attention. Seems someone had the school magazine and digitalized it. Is it real? Seems to be. It was typical Lefty college stuff with a few advanced phrases thrown in for a patina of intellectualism. Obama's a smart guy but the article was not Pulitzer Prize material even in today's climate.
Wasn't Obama known for being the least, or one of the least, published head's of the Harvard Law Review? You can't obtain what there isn't to be had.
Also, has not Obama had his records sealed for the time being? That could extend to purchasing copies of articles. It's up to the courtesy of the institution, and, in this situation, Harvard has been compliant with Obama's request.
stratman:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 5:18pm.
You wrote:
"Wasn't Obama known for being the least, or one of the least, published head's of the Harvard Law Review? "
- No, That is not true.
"Also, has not Obama had his records sealed for the time being? That could extend to purchasing copies of articles."
Again - the question. Mr. Obama's personal records are not the same as articles published in a magazine he edited.
May I respectfully suggest you have the facts before you quote Wing Nutz Daily?
Puddinhead, stratman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 5:42pm.
likely wouldn't bother with asking you why you suggest others have the facts before quoting a source when you won't practice what you preach. You are a putz.Private Bill Wilson LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:47pm.
j. frank wilson the 143 time liar: Wasn't Obama known for being the least, or one of the least, published head's of the Harvard Law Review? " - No, That is not true.
Obama’s vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years
Capt. UnderPantz:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:47pm.
Are you really so stupid you don't know the difference between "published' and "cited?"
The "source" you link to provides:
"There doesn’t seem to be any record of Obama publishing anything in his own journal. "
We know that statement is equally stuipid.
Meanwhile, even if it is true that volume of the Harvard Law Review is the least-cited - and I'm certainly not granting that is the case - it would reflect the work of the entire student body, wouldn't it? Since that is the reason student writings are not signed.
I know this is probably too much for you to follow.
Does heredity determine how many DD-214 moons of Mars can dance on the head of a pin?
stratman:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:14pm.
Wing Nutz Daily made up the fuss about Mr. Obama's Harvard Law Review articles.
Copies of the back issues are readily available:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/
Issues and volumes prior to Volume 123 are available from:
William S. Hein & Co., Inc.
www.wshein.com
1285 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14209
(800) 828-7571
mail@wshein.com
The reason I state this fuss is fantasy is:
All student writing is unsigned. This policy reflects the fact that many members of the Review, besides the author, make a contribution to each published piece.
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/about.php
So Wing Nutz Daily yells about articles written by Mr. Obama are not available. They are - they simply aren't signed, just as all the student writing is not signed.
Fantasy.
"All student writing is unsigned", eh, Puddinhead?---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:29pm.
Damn, I can't think of a better way to prove Obama wrote the articles you say he did. Convinced me, you have.Fool:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:34pm.
Maybe having a tall boy for your holiday breakfast wasn't such a good idea - you are making even less sense than usual, and that's saying something.
Stratman claimed Mr. Obama's Harvard Law Review articles haven't been readily available. This is Wing Nutz Daily crazy talk.
I pointed out they are readily available - get the back issues of the publication and read the articles. Is that really too hard for you to follow?
On second thought, keep up the mid-day drinking...You can't be any dumber than you already are.
Nice try, Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 6:58pm.
But you really have GOT to get it together; breakfast ain't mid-day. If a written article is not signed by the author, do you libs hold it to your head a la " Carnac the Magnificent" to determine who actually wrote it? Putz.MD: you get up at noon, breakfast IS mid-day
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:08pm.
.
Of course, SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:16pm.
I forgot that Due Fuss j.frank is on liberal time. :o) MDj.frank Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:09pm.
I would rather be thought of as dumb, by an ass like you, than be the proven liar that you are.
Don't give up, Puddinhead; the past is yours. So long as you continue to lie about it.
MD
"Stratman claimed Mr. Obama's
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:58pm.
No, I did not claim Obama's HLR articles haven't been readily avaiable.
Look at my original post and then look at your post in which you quoted me:
Note the operant word "COULD"? I made no assumption that the HLR during Obama's time as head was absolutely, positively sealed.
Next, The Vet has presented evidence that Obama's HLR was, in aggregate, one of the least used as reference than other HLR's in a 20 year time frame. This may not be solely a reflection of his leadership, but it does pertain to the importance of the HLR under his leadership and brings in question the value of and/or his character in leading the HLR.
Next, as matthewdean has pointed out, no names on the articles means no way of determining Obama's significance in article contribution at the HLR. I'm sure Jer will not be pleased with you for introducing "Carnac the Magnificient" methods of devising the unidentified.
Hey Jer! WND was right that Obama has spent over a million dollars concealing his records! Your buddy J. Frank Willson endorses the non-itemized methodology of divining authentication.
stratman:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 8:06pm.
From Post #247 - it has your name on it, so I went out on a limb and assumed you'd posted it:
"WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles ...JFW:
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:31pm.
First, using post #'s, such as #247, will result in confusion as the NB software will alter post numbers as people continue to post. Use the link found in the title of the post to keep things correlated properly. You are not alone in this confusion since the NB update.
Second, I quoted the entire text from WND, instead of chopping it up, to maintain integrity of the sentence and points of interest, then I separated out the points I thought were least and most important to me.
Third, your post is a non sequitar to the flow of this branch of the discussion.
Stratman:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:55pm.
Thank you for the tip about Numbered Posts! Perhaps NB should have used a Dewey system with .'s ... it's always easy to offer suggestions after the fact.
I did not realize you'd posted twice (seperate items, not a duplicate) on the same subject. I apologize for the confusion on my part.
At the risk of returning to the original. Neither Mr. Obama or the Harvard Law Review have hidden his articles. My point remains: Wing Nutz Daily made up this controversary and some people who don't understand that student articles are not signed have fallen for it.
Anyone seriously interested in WND's Birthier nonsense can join their 12-Step Program for about $100 plus optional donations. One thing I have to say about those folks - no matter what the topic, they seem to find a way to raise money around it!
I will repeat a point I've made a time or two here. America faces very serious problems. Why can't we find common ground to work to solve them? Back in the day (before Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay) we could disagree with out being disagreeable. Go back and watch the Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debates. They agreed on where the Nation should be going, they were both WWII veterans, they respected each other. The debate was the journey, not the destination(s).
Now Mr. Obama is supposed to be a Muslin anti-American socialist Marixst Communist you-name-it. History will look back on this and laugh to keep from crying. It's just so silly.,,,
jfw,Your record number postings per thread, in NB-2 Why is that?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 10:49pm.
You Didn't Build That.
strat...more info
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 7:54pm.
Here's another article which covers a lot of turf and (from my perspective at least) ably addresses many of the specific questions raised by you and others. It cites both "right" and "left" sources in its general defense against the more prominent and persistent birther claims.
Jer
this one breaks down by
Submitted by TruthMonger on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 8:02pm.
this one breaks down by trying to equate the COLB with the BC
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Here We Go
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:17am.
From your link:
""A certification of live birth is the "official birth certificate" of Hawaii, according to the state's Department of Health spokeswoman, Janice Okubo. And the nonpartisan, nonprofitFactcheck.org, which examined Obama's original birth certificate last year at the president's campaign headquarters in Chicago, concluded, "It meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.""
"But still, the birthers ask, why won't President Obama release his original birth certificate and possibly bury the issue once and for all?
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent answer to this question: "Why should he? The demand has no basis in principle and would have no practical benefit.""
Once again the writer muddies the waters in trying to dispel the notion of original documentation having been destroyed in the past. So the government did not purposefully destroy documents. This does not mean that an unintended fire caused destruction of the original. If a fire did occur, would the subsequent document in the records department be called "original" as it is the governments document and all others are still copies? I imagine if the official represenative knew there was or was not a fire or some other cause for destruction of documents that she would tell us. Neither the official nor this author would parse words, would they?
Again, the author injects discordance as to one singular document, and only one "original" vault copy document ever, by adding this curious "obsolete" comment from James Taranto: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii." [...] "The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not 'resolve the issue' to those for whom it is not already resolved." So there is more than one, Jer?
Finally, we get to the meat of the matter, beginning with Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, who states she has seen the long form BC held in the department. Curiously, she may have violated HIPAA law in issuing her statement. While I am going to take Dr. Fukino at her word, I still believe in following the great Ronald Reagan's "Trust But Verify". Maybe it's because in Medicine, you are taught to do this very thing.
Now we get to "right-leaning" National Review part that finally discusses there is an actual long form BC which lists plenty of details, like physician signature and location of delivery, that the COLB does not contain. In other words, the author wasted our time up and until now with either worthless meanderings or tangential points. My numbered points #5-9 demonstrate the incoherence of the author. At least the author's self-contradiction about a COLB and a BC, by all accurate accounts, as NOT the same is finally resolved... by himself no less! The author of the Salon article is an idiot of the first degree.
Jer, the official long-form BC will end my enquiry on this subject. It will have all the specific and pertinent data that the COLB does not have, including where he was born and if there was an official proxie for the State signing the form (a physician and not one of the Darryl's).
Thanks for your link. It provided what I needed to dispel your misconceptions on COLB's, BC's, and the Left's obfuscating propaganda on this topic.
What are your concerns about releasing a long-form BC now? We'll all have our definitive proof then. There will always be a fringe element that sees conspiracies. It's the masses that will finally put this dog to bed after the release. And, as a bonus, you can then tell any dissenters on the BC issue to STFU. We'd probably help you out. I know you'd like that.
Wanted to add My Birth
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 4:06am.
Wanted to add
To be fair Strat, your birth certificate was on paper,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 5:25pm.
not carved on a coconut as was the custom until fairly recently.
I think the Hawaiians will back me up on this.
;)
LOL
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 7:28pm.
Thanks for the much needed laugh in this miserable thread, SoL. :-)
No, No, No, SOL!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 9:26pm.
The Samoans use Coconuts.
Hawaiians write on Ti leaves.
We Are The 53%
No, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:13pm.
Maybe you've forgotten the disgraceful inaction by President Bush regarding Border Agents, Ramos and Campean.
Bush's refusal to act did not delegitimize his Presidency though many of us were certainly disgusted with his choice.
Today it's Obama who's making an even bigger fool of himself and you don't like it. You couldn't care less that a house painter making $13/hr has to pay for a 100% Health Care plan and a Pension and a salary for teachers making much more than him.
You're being an elitist lawyer, Jer.
→ Nothing at all
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 10:20pm.
It's just that Liberals seem to forget their whiny god Al Gore, and his whiny sycophants, badgering George Bush for months about his legitimacy until they fell silent on 9/11. Certainly glad Al Gore wasn't there to pick up the pieces.
My guess, Cool
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 02/20/2011 - 2:42am.
Is that these poor, undercompensated teachers, all make more, bennies and all else considered, than the majority of those paying for them.
Dems don't seem to consider this at all.
BTW, shouldn't unions be barred from negotiating contracts with people who will not be held responsible for the demise of the "business"? It seems the dumber our graduates get, the more the teachers get paid. This is ridiculous.
Cool Arrow:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:54am.
Agents ramos Campean covered up a shooting. They lied about it. If you believe in the rule of law, then you must believe that law enforcement has to tell the truth.
If you are interested in the truth about those events - and not the lies that have been recycled and recycled and recycled, read the excellent Texas Monthly article about the case.
Jer:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 11:58am.
You are correct. You summarize it nicely - in a nutshell, as it were.
The Birthiers are like alcoholics - one drink is too many, and a thousand are not enough.
Since their position is not based on facts, more facts won't change their position. I wouldn't generalize how folks become Birthiers - there are far too many paths to the same silly end.
There is nothing Mr. Obama can do to change their minds - and he's wise enough to realize that.
You are, too.
Puddinhead---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 5:55pm.
What's a "Birthier?" Liberals unite on a conservative site; j. frank wilson attaches his lips to Jer's tushie. Obama may well be a Soros tool, and you, Puddinhead, are a fool.If only...
Submitted by MCLIJazz on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 12:28am.
If only conservatives and Republicans could take the comedian approach and go out of interviews on a high note. "I take him at his word that he's a Christian. I believe he was born in Hawaii. Good night, everybody!" (By the way, I believe those two things [Christian, born in Hawaii], as well.) To further that metaphor, Stephanopoulos and David Gregory are using the hook the opposite way; to bring guests back on the stage instead of off.
Incidentally, George was on The O'Reilly Factor Monday night. The topic for the segment after his was Gregory's hectoring, if that's the right word, of Speaker Boehner.
Good catch, Denny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 3:05am.
on the race-religion bit. I read right over it.
Cool had been thumping old bob pretty good, so I may have missed it cuz my big grin caused me to squint.
MD
I guess I fall in that category, MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 5:18am.
Since my wife is budhist, I'm in an inter-racial marriage.... twice!!!.
We Are The 53%
→ Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 9:14pm.
OK, Jer. Why is it you demand the Democrat equivalent of the Apostles' Creed on this birth certificate thing? Do you really believe it makes a difference, one way or the other, what people believe concerning his place of birth?
This is going to bug you to the point you join Chris Matthews with "Come on champ, show them the birth certificate!"
If you thought it was all that important, you'd be demanding proof, now wouldn't you. What bothers you, Jer, must be that niggling vestigial doubt that you carry. Most of us don't really care, but we know it bothers the heck out of you.
I don't demand proof, but I do recognize this President is more than content to let Americans think what they will about his place of birth.
Shouldn't you do the same?
Will I, every once in awhile make mention of the birth certificate, or Larry Sinclair? Yes, of course. I get a load of laughs thinking about Der President snorting coke off the belly of a fat man.