Strange, how I neither complained your comments were without qualityYeah sure SIRS...you just brought up
quantity over quality completely out of the blue.
As you said "whatever"......lol
A mild backhanded dig, perhaps? No it was a straight forward dig....I don't hide "between the lines" like you did.
See?? NO, YOU DIDN'T. Yes I did.
The core problem was perfectly articulated in the question Ami posed.Maybe the core problem for you, you dont define what I see as the core problem.
A core question to this whole debate, that you conveniently punted to some nebulous "experts". I don't really see it as a legislative problem, so I am not concerned with any new laws....
if they want to write new laws....fine...I'll look at them...
and approve or disapprove....thats pretty much how reality works.
You opined, on and on about slavery and the injustice of it all.
Never once addressing what exactly needs to change in current .
law to right such an injustice that Obama is now President.
Again, why spend all this time on the fringe, and not once,
dealing with the main issue at hand??Again....you dont get it....I guess.
Not sure if you are playing games and pretending to not get it
or you really dont get it.
In debate SIRS analogy can be an important tool.
You are fixated on the slavery analogy
My references to slavery have really nothing to do with slavery per se
The analogy is used to expose your false/weak logic.
Basically you say "well he's legal"..."he's following the law"....so nothing can be done.
And I say "wait a minute" there is something that can be done....
just like in our country's history....something once legal/unjust was reversed.
The analogy shows that in our past history that injustices can be
approved by courts or be "legal", but that does not mean the injustices are "ok".
That's because this isn't a court problem. That's your opinion.
Since you won't answer, I'm gonna make a guess.....that you hate this President so much, I did answer....you just dont approve of my answer.
I dont hate our President....but I do hate socialism or the march towards socialism.
I like Mitt Romney but if questions arose about him not being born in the US and
he refused to show his full long form birth certificate and Mitt allowed millions and
millions to be spent keeping the courts from investigating this....then I would say
I would not want him serving as President....change the names to Palin, Reagan
Jindal, Bush, Brown, Rubio, who-ever...no matter what Party...I do not want
a non-US born person serving as our President. PERIOD!
"Technicality" my ass!
that you'll use anything, even a wishful technicality, that could get him tossed out of the WH. See there is the truth...FINALLY.
Finally, finally, finally!
You and others actually see the US Constitution as a "technicality".
Do you really think that?
Do you really think if I am correct that it is a "technicality"?
Honestly SIRS that is "WOW" to me.
SIRS what else do you see as a "technicality"?...our right to own guns?...free speech?
Amazing people see a very clear sentence in the US Constitution, put there not by accident
Put there for a reason, and then try to demean and imply others are haters for simply
trying to follow that Constitution.....AMAZING.
That you really don't have an issue with the law, only that you're mad as hell that this President
was elected, that you have to then convince yourself he was illegally elected.
You know what we referred to those on the left, when they had that mentality aimed at Bush?...BDSMostly ALL Wrong once again.
Yes I am not happy a super super Liberal was elected President.....are you?
But actually it is working out pretty well.....what's he done?....whats he got passed?
Cap & Trade? FAIL!---> Healthcare? FAIL!---Close Gitmo? FAIL!----Ban Earmarks?---->FAIL!
He's getting his ass kicked up one side and down the other and he controls BOTH Houses!
(one thing he's done I like is fire many more Predator missiles to kill IslamoNazis)
But getting back to your wrong "guess"....I have stated repeatedly this is not a big issue for me.
I think we've been held up, robbed, whatever....but most likely the crime will go unpunished.
Fine.....I didn't start the thread....I very, very, rarely bring the topic up here or anywhere else.
I didn't obsess with OJ when he sailed thru....yeah I thought is sucked....but I moved on
unless someone brought it up.
THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?? There is no problem that I really worry about unless it's brought up by someone,
that is unless one of these court cases is fully accepted and discovery of evidence is executed.
Then I think we'll see a VERY BIG PROBLEM!
Why all the rhetoric about slavery?? To use analogy to expose the fallacy of your argument.....nothing more.
This travesty of justice, if there's no problem with current law??Yeah....there are "travesty of justice" whenever someone guilty gets off.
But that does not mean we must always write new laws everytime someone gets off that
we are pretty sure is guilty. I think OJ was guilty....but because he got off I dont really
see that we need to write a bunch of new laws concerning murder.
Then I have no idea why all this time and energy has been spent.
Laws, that YOU have likened to slavery. Laws that YOU have
said need fighting for. Now........."Actually no new laws must
be enacted." WhateverThis is just further evidence ...you dont get it.
No....no new laws need to be enacted.
The Constitution is fine, it just needs to be enforced.
Why would any new laws be needed?
It's simple really....but so far....it has not been successful
there needs to be a lawsuit filed and accepted to be heard
that allows for
discovery....in the discovery process documents like
Obama's original long form 1961 birth certificate will be under
subpoena...and then examined by the courts and both sides of case.
So, you ARE hoping for some legislating from the bench.
How so very....liberal of you One man's "legislating" is another man's "interpreting the constitution".
You pretend you are different, but I am sure you applaud when a court sides with you on issues.
You just call it "following the constitution" then when the court sides against you
claim "legislating from the bench"
You're just too blind to see it.
I'm afraid to ask, what law would that be? Obama is now OJ?SIRS....you dont do well with analogy do you?....do you even know what analogy is?
ps: I am done with this thread....you can have the last word....it's become boring
because it's not about non-US born Obama anymore and is more about sematics
and language.......I'm done....but I hope the courts aren't done!
WE'LL SEE!