Obama birth certificate issue gaining momentum - Youtube video has over 560,000 views

[speciallyblend]

this issue is gonna hit the gop like a pie in the face!

 

[kahless]

Actually pushing this issue may get you all Arnold the Terminator for president. The supreme court will redifne what natural born is to keep the nations cities from being burned in riots

Exactly, that is what I said a few pages back but Idirtify and Specialtyblend brings up a good point about the damage it would do the Republicans. So all might not be lost and provide the Libertarians a shot as the alternative party due to the huge backlash in booting Obama.

Depending on the level of dissatisfaction with Democrats you may end up with a result being no better than half the country voting Democrat and the other half split between multiple parties. The Republican party is already very fragile which is the reason why cowards like Lindsey Graham are cowering in fear supporting the Sotomayer nomination.

 

[Pete]

Idirtify and gh4dotcom--

Gh4dotcom's argument makes sense, certainly, and to be honest I am pleased by the attention the BC issue is getting, waking people up to the crookedness of the system. But I am also wary of the BC issue being a potential trap, following the Fabian principle of creating order from chaos. Remember that Philip Berg is a Democrat close to Hillary Clinton. Also, Orly Taitz has a peculiar background and I think she could be a false shepherd.

Smart conservatives like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Pat Buchanan aren't touching the subject of Obama's citizenship at this time. We probably ought to keep the issues on a higher plane as well, IMO, because 'throwing the bum out' would just continue to feed the partisan frenzy, at best. Again, this is my opinion. I'm looking for better leadership on the matter.

 

[idirtify]

What unfortunate rationale we are seeing here. Pete thinks we should not hold politicians to a higher standard of accountability and throw them out of office when we get the chance because “the system is too corrupt and the public is too dumb” and it would “be a non-victory…culminate in a Constitutional Convention…just continue to feed the partisan frenzy”. Klamath thinks it would “get you all Arnold the Terminator for president” because “the supreme court will redifne what natural born is to keep the nations cities from being burned in riots”. I SMELL SOMETHING ROTTEN. These kinds of false fears are part of the most favorite tactic used by big governments to violate rights and constitutions. Authority loves to embellish an unreasonable fear and scare the people into submission and/or apathy. Look…I’m all for trying to plan ahead, but this rationale is as old as the hills. There are always a trainload of potential bad short-term outcomes from any single action, but that is not the point of doing the right thing. If it was, all “right things” would become “wrong things” and all incentives for doing them would disappear. IOW under this kind of thinking, we might as well tear up the Constitution, forget about the Golden Rule, and dissolve the Liberty/RP movement.

Dear Lovers of Individual Freedom: always be suspicious of people who will go to great lengths of sophistry to predict all manner of doom and gloom if you do this one good thing; “It’s a good thing, but you should not do it because a whole lot of bad things will probably result”. Whether there is a hidden agenda behind it (usually is) or whether it’s just good old-fashioned fear and ignorance, it doesn’t matter; the effect is the same.

 

[Pete]

^^^attempted smear

 

[fedup100]

^^^attempted smear

No Pete, you shit your on pants they just pointed it out.

 

[Sandra]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

 

[fedup100]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

Idirtify seems to have a good ration of common sense. Someone sure needed to define the forum, glad they did it and it shows they have clear judgment.

Sandra, please go home to your suckoffzero site and leave those who are trying to save the republic get on with their business.

 

[idirtify]

idirtify, it comes off as smelling rotten when newer registrants to this forum try to DEFINE the forum. You haven't that right or even clear judgment.

Good grief Sandra, there are several points that are relevant to this topic waiting for your reply, but instead you say that I have no right to try “to DEFINE the forum”. If you disagree with my description, then rebut it properly by providing your own; but please don’t issue such a ridiculous idea of a “right”, or your posting credibility will continue to fall. (Shall I again point out the theme of this forum, but this time as it pertains to “rights”?)

Come-on and get back on topic. Start by specifying HOW you think my judgment is not clear – REGARDING THIS TOPIC.

 

[idirtify]

^^^attempted smear

please elaborate.

 

[Sandra]

Good grief Sandra, there are several points that are relevant to this topic waiting for your reply, but instead you say that I have no right to try “to DEFINE the forum”. If you disagree with my description, then rebut it properly by providing your own; but please don’t issue such a ridiculous idea of a “right”, or your posting credibility will continue to fall. (Shall I again point out the theme of this forum, but this time as it pertains to “rights”?)

Come-on and get back on topic. Start by specifying HOW you think my judgment is not clear – REGARDING THIS TOPIC.

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

 

[Pete]

please elaborate.

Well, your previous post reframed my argument in a way that I do not agree with, and you insinuated that I might be a shill. I'm not arguing with you any more.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This is like the 9/11 threads. It gets to where you have to realize that nobody is going to change their mind and going on is pointless. Unless you enjoy the banter.
Obama is president. The only way to change that is to get him impeached or prove (by providing a genuine birth certificate from another country) he isn't or voting him out. You get another chance at that in 2012.

 

[mediahasyou]

Say it was actually true that Obama was not born in the U.S...

Why would the government use the constitution to impeach Obama when the constitution is not even being used?

Say Obama actually got impeached...

Would Joe Biden be any better than Obama?

You are wasting your time.

 

[tpreitzel]

Obama needs to stop the obfuscation and just present the facts certifying his birth with the long form record of it. Just like 9-11, this issue needs to be pursued until he does as both of these issues affect the highest law of the land, the US Constitution, one indirectly and the other directly. These issues NEVER need to go away until the facts are uncovered and justice executed. Maybe, priorities need to be periodically reevaluated, but the issues themselves demand pursuing until justice is served. The issue isn't who is better if justice is served. The issue IS the US Constitution itself.

 

[idirtify]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

Sandra,

Before I reply to your continued diversion away from the topic and on to my person, I’d like to say that your tactic is typical for those who can not support their arguments. IOW, what about the topic, Sandra?

Regarding you calling me a “Troll”, you might have some credibility if this were a Democrat forum. But the last time I checked, it’s about as far from that as you can get. So in that context, I’m afraid the more trollish posting pattern would be one that continually defended a DEMOCRAT. (Oh wait…you didn’t want me to “define” this forum. Well darnit, there I go again – violating your “right”. )

Now let my try to TROLL you back into attempting to support your claims. I must assume you are objecting to this “definition” of the forum I posted earlier:
“one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority”
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, how and why? Let’s not worry about how many OTHERS agree or disagree with it, and let’s ignore your ridiculous strawman version of it. I want to hear YOUR actual disagreement.

 

[fedup100]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

I agree with his definition. I also know YOU are the shill. We know why we are here on this forum. You know you are here to try your very best to divide and generally make sure nothing is done to save the republic.

Doubt, that is your job, to spread doubt. Your job is to protect your zero and make sure the sheeple see the doubt.

If only you could go back in time and become O's mother, you and she were cut from the same gib.

 

[idirtify]

No one here agrees with your definition : "if anyone disagrees with idirtify, then you shouldn't post to this forum". You
re relativerly new and don't have a clue as to why we are here. You REALLY come off as a troll for distraction.

Sandra,

Before I reply to your continued diversion away from the topic and on to my person, I’d like to say that your tactic is typical for those who can not support their arguments. IOW, what about the topic, Sandra?

Regarding you calling me a “Troll”, you might have some credibility if this were a Democrat forum. But the last time I checked, it’s about as far from that as you can get. So in that context, I’m afraid the more trollish posting pattern would be one that continually defended a DEMOCRAT. (Oh wait…you didn’t want me to “define” this forum. Well darnit, there I go again – violating your “right”.)

Now let my try to TROLL you back into attempting to support your claims. I must assume you are objecting to this “definition” of the forum I posted earlier:
“one of the main themes of this forum is distrust of authority?”
Do you disagree with my statement? If so, how and why? Let’s not worry about how many OTHERS agree or disagree with my “definition”, and let’s ignore your ridiculous strawman version of it. I want to hear YOUR actual disagreement.

 

[idirtify]

Well, your previous post reframed my argument in a way that I do not agree with, and you insinuated that I might be a shill. I'm not arguing with you any more.

Thanks for elaborating, but you are incorrect. I only insinuated that you might have a pro-Obama or pro-Democrat agenda. You certainly don’t need to be a shill for that. Now if you want to argue that you do NOT have such an agenda, then it behooves you to explain the real reason(s) why you would not hold a corrupt big-government politician (the biggest one in the land) to a higher standard of accountability and throw him out of office while we have the chance AND why you would allow said biggest politician to get away with holding the office without proper qualification. The reason you need to give your real reason(s) is because your previous reasons are not only lame but antithetical to everything about the theme of this forum.

Or if you would rather argue precisely how my previous post reframed your argument, please do; because you could accomplish the same task within that frame.

 

[amy31416]

Please Jesus, tell me that we aren't part of the "birther" movement and that we criticize Obama on policy, not conspiracy.

Amen.