Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 4, 11:37*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:44*pm, Iarnrod wrote: You can say "most people have their originals" all you want, but you're just blathering. It simply isn't true. And it is true, even more true for African American families to keep birth certificates, death certificates, etc. LOL! No, it appears that Jews have the corner on this market. not the point, you barged in late on an ongoing conversation, transparency is "NOT HIDING ANYTHING" when you finally grasp that point we can keep- on talking. But i doubt that you are intellectually up to the task But you haven't proved that Obama *is* hiding anything. You have brainlessly *speculated* over and over (and over and over) that he has. That's it. Name a half-truth. You can't and you won't. "Granny" sure called this one. LOL! I have been here a long time, talked a lot of audio That complete evades the question, not surprisingly. Why are you discussing Obama's birth certificate in an audio group? why are your very first posts on an audio group all about Obama's BC. Why haven't you ever written anything at all about audio? your persona just arrived here, supposedly to talk audio. You brought this "point" up, Clyde. Slowly back away from the bottle, take a deep breath, (try to) think, and restate your position. LOL! You are a repetitive idot, repeating the same mantras over and over again, 'with no cpapcity to understand the concept of trans[arancy which is NOT HIDING ANYTHING And again, you haven't proven anything IS BEING HIDDEN. byeee, you can talk to yourself from now on, or anyone else who wants to talk with you, try Boon, you can have a nice two way with him. I don't have time for self deluding idiots like you. byeee! Ah, the run-and-hide technique to losing an argument. More evidence that 2pid has stolen Clyde's password. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 5, 5:17*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 4, 11:37*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 4, 11:44*pm, Iarnrod wrote: You can say "most people have their originals" all you want, but you're just blathering. It simply isn't true. And it is true, even more true for African American families to keep birth certificates, death certificates, etc. LOL! No, it appears that Jews have the corner on this market. not the point, you barged in late on an ongoing conversation, transparency is "NOT HIDING ANYTHING" when you finally grasp that point we can keep- on talking. But i doubt that you are intellectually up to the task But you haven't proved that Obama *is* hiding anything. You have brainlessly *speculated* over and over (and over and over) that he has. That's it. Name a half-truth. You can't and you won't. "Granny" sure called this one. LOL! I have been here a long time, talked a lot of audio That complete evades the question, not surprisingly. Why are you discussing Obama's birth certificate in an audio group? why are your very first posts on an audio group all about Obama's BC. Why haven't you ever written anything at all about audio? your persona just arrived here, supposedly to talk audio. You brought this "point" up, Clyde. Slowly back away from the bottle, take a deep breath, (try to) think, and restate your position. LOL! You are a repetitive idot, repeating the same mantras over and over again, 'with no cpapcity to understand the concept of trans[arancy which is NOT HIDING ANYTHING And again, you haven't proven anything IS BEING HIDDEN. byeee, you can talk to yourself from now on, or anyone else who wants to talk with you, try Boon, you can have a nice two way with him. I don't have time for self deluding idiots like you. byeee! Ah, the run-and-hide technique to losing an argument. More evidence that 2pid has stolen Clyde's password. LOL! All i was getting from granny is the restatement of the same old same old, over and over. No point in going around in endless circles, Granny can chase her tail with youse guys... |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 5, 5:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:17*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 4, 11:37*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 4, 11:44*pm, Iarnrod wrote: You can say "most people have their originals" all you want, but you're just blathering. It simply isn't true. And it is true, even more true for African American families to keepbirthcertificates, death certificates, etc. LOL! No, it appears that Jews have the corner on this market. not the point, you barged in late on an ongoing conversation, transparency is "NOT HIDING ANYTHING" when you finally grasp that point we can keep- on talking. But i doubt that you are intellectually up to the task But you haven't proved that Obama *is* hiding anything. You have brainlessly *speculated* over and over (and over and over) that he has. That's it. Name a half-truth. You can't and you won't. "Granny" sure called this one. LOL! I have been here a long time, talked a lot of audio That complete evades the question, not surprisingly. Why are you discussing Obama'sbirthcertificatein an audio group? why are your very first posts on an audio group all about Obama's BC. Why haven't you ever written anything at all about audio? your persona just arrived here, supposedly to talk audio. You brought this "point" up, Clyde. Slowly back away from the bottle, take a deep breath, (try to) think, and restate your position. LOL! You are a repetitive idot, repeating the same mantras over and over again, 'with no cpapcity to understand the concept of trans[arancy which is NOT HIDING ANYTHING And again, you haven't proven anything IS BEING HIDDEN. byeee, you can talk to yourself from now on, or anyone else who wants to talk with you, try Boon, you can have a nice two way with him. I don't have time for self deluding idiots like you. byeee! Ah, the run-and-hide technique to losing an argument. More evidence that 2pid has stolen Clyde's password. LOL! All i was getting from granny is the restatement of the same old same old, over and over. So in other words, everyone kicks your stupid kooker ass here? Mmmmmm- kay, fine by me. I proved you wrong. All you had was baseless opinion and misinformed polemic. Obama becomes the first president in US history ever to release his birth certificate and you carry on as though he didn't. No wonder people call you crazy. No point in going around in endless circles, Granny can chase her tail with youse guys... Are you done letting em kick your stupid ass then? I got more if you're willing... You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 5, 6:45*pm, Iarnrod wrote:
On Jul 5, 5:29*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 5:17*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 4, 11:37*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 4, 11:44*pm, Iarnrod wrote: You can say "most people have their originals" all you want, but you're just blathering. It simply isn't true. And it is true, even more true for African American families to keepbirthcertificates, death certificates, etc. LOL! No, it appears that Jews have the corner on this market. not the point, you barged in late on an ongoing conversation, transparency is "NOT HIDING ANYTHING" when you finally grasp that point we can keep- on talking. But i doubt that you are intellectually up to the task But you haven't proved that Obama *is* hiding anything. You have brainlessly *speculated* over and over (and over and over) that he has. That's it. Name a half-truth. You can't and you won't. "Granny" sure called this one. LOL! I have been here a long time, talked a lot of audio That complete evades the question, not surprisingly. Why are you discussing Obama'sbirthcertificatein an audio group? why are your very first posts on an audio group all about Obama's BC. Why haven't you ever written anything at all about audio? your persona just arrived here, supposedly to talk audio. You brought this "point" up, Clyde. Slowly back away from the bottle, take a deep breath, (try to) think, and restate your position. LOL! You are a repetitive idot, repeating the same mantras over and over again, 'with no cpapcity to understand the concept of trans[arancy which is NOT HIDING ANYTHING And again, you haven't proven anything IS BEING HIDDEN. byeee, you can talk to yourself from now on, or anyone else who wants to talk with you, try Boon, you can have a nice two way with him. I don't have time for self deluding idiots like you. byeee! Ah, the run-and-hide technique to losing an argument. More evidence that 2pid has stolen Clyde's password. LOL! All i was getting from granny is the restatement of the same old same old, over and over. While Clyde kept turning over new ground. LOL! So in other words, everyone kicks your stupid kooker ass here? Mmmmmm- kay, fine by me. I proved you wrong. All you had was baseless opinion and misinformed polemic. Obama becomes the first president in US history ever to release his birth certificate and you carry on as though he didn't. No wonder people call you crazy. No point in going around in endless circles, Granny can chase her tail with youse guys... Except that "Granny" seems to be basing her arguments in fact, and your 'arguments' are a little short in that department. Are you done letting em kick your stupid ass then? I got more if you're willing... You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on his birth certificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on his birth certificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 12:16*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on his birth certificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. Oh, how clever of you! You're right. I've seen him on TV and he's quite opaque. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 9:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. Besides, the Supreme Court dismissed the birther argument three times. The third time they didn't even formally look at it because it was so lacking in hard evidence. And if his birth certificate had said "Muslim," so what? It was a well- known fact that Obama's father was a Muslim, albeit a non-practicing one. Add that to the fact that Obama has made countless statements about his administration being tolerant and welcoming toward Islam, both in and out of the US, and you've run out of conspiracies. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 10:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. my issue has nothing to do with his citizenship. It has to do with his lack of transparency. He has refused to release the document, acting like' he has something he wants hidden, If he wants to be transparent, and live up to his self promoting hype, he should release it. I don't know what is on it, i don;t know what he is intentionally hiding, if anything, but i want him to stop hiding the document while he hypocritically claims to be transparent. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:40*am, Boon wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us.. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. Besides, the Supreme Court dismissed the birther argument three times. The third time they didn't even formally look at it because it was so lacking in hard evidence. And if his birth certificate had said "Muslim," so what? It was a well- known fact that Obama's father was a Muslim, albeit a non-practicing one. Add that to the fact that Obama has made countless statements about his administration being tolerant and welcoming toward Islam, both in and out of the US, and you've run out of conspiracies. that's how i feel, So what if it said that.? |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:40*am, Boon wrote: On Jul 6, 9:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. Besides, the Supreme Court dismissed the birther argument three times. The third time they didn't even formally look at it because it was so lacking in hard evidence. And if his birth certificate had said "Muslim," so what? It was a well- known fact that Obama's father was a Muslim, albeit a non-practicing one. Add that to the fact that Obama has made countless statements about his administration being tolerant and welcoming toward Islam, both in and out of the US, and you've run out of conspiracies. that's how i feel, So what if it said that.? NOTHING. That's the point! He has nothing to hide, so why do you insist on believing that he's hiding something? |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. HE didn't "present a problem". Some idiots falsely accused him of something. Then in spite of the fact that he disproved the false allegations, some other people insist that should have/could have done more. It's never enough. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
that's how i feel, You can also "feel" the moon is made of green cheese. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 10:04*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 6, 10:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us.. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. my issue has nothing to do with his citizenship. It has to do with his lack of transparency. He has refused to release the document, acting like' he has something he wants hidden, If he wants to be transparent, and live up to his self promoting hype, he should release it. He did. Do you feel that if asked he should release copies of his driver's license and his social security card, or that is he doesn't, he isn't being "transparent"? I don't know what is on it, i don;t know what he is intentionally hiding, if anything, but i want him to stop What could be "hidden"? hiding the document while he hypocritically claims to be transparent. You are either playing dumb or you really are dumb. Which is it? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: i want him to stop hiding the document while he hypocritically claims to be transparent. You CHOOSE to BELIEVE that he is hiding something. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 10:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us.. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. Oh, so you agree: case closed. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born *citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the *US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. Many children of servicepeople are born outside US territory, in Germany, in Korea, in Japan, and hundreds of other places. It's about as much of an 'issue' as Obama's was except the Dems aren't as conspiracy prone as their counterparts. Dems are smarter than that. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:40*am, Boon wrote: On Jul 6, 9:36*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 8:30*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35*am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. Why not explain your particular definition, 2pid. And use your own account. You're making Clyde look dumb. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. LOL! Obama did not "present a problem". A certain group tried to create one and the dip****s of that group fell in line. Say, did you know the republicans have a "candidate's university" in Washington? They teach republican candidates how to run campaigns at it. One of the classes they give is called "How to File an Indictment 10 Days Before an Election". No ****. He was asked to prove he was a US citizen. He "transparently" provided incontrovertible proof of his US citizenship. You seem to 'think' there is some hidden data on his birth certificate. What do you suppose that is? Why is it important? You're full of speculation and **** and not much else. Besides, the Supreme Court dismissed the birther argument three times. The third time they didn't even formally look at it because it was so lacking in hard evidence. And if his birth certificate had said "Muslim," so what? It was a well- known fact that Obama's father was a Muslim, albeit a non-practicing one. Add that to the fact that Obama has made countless statements about his administration being tolerant and welcoming toward Islam, both in and out of the US, and you've run out of conspiracies. that's how i feel, So what if it said that.? Is your main fear that it states he is a Muslim? |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 12:34*am, Jenn wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: i want him to stop hiding the document while he hypocritically claims to be transparent. You CHOOSE to BELIEVE that he is hiding something. If he provided all of the information, we would know for sure. T,the fact is this, not all of the information available on the original bc has been provided. that is not a matter of what anyone "chooses" to believe. it is fact. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:35*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 6, 10:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. Oh, so you agree: case closed. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born *citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the *US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. Many children of servicepeople are born outside US territory, in Germany, in Korea, in Japan, and hundreds of other places. It's about as much of an 'issue' as Obama's was except the Dems aren't as conspiracy prone as their counterparts. Dems are smarter than that. If John McCain was a Democrat AND he won the election AND he was black, you'd better believe they would be making a big deal about his being born in the Panama Canal Zone. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 12:35*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 6, 10:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. Oh, so you agree: case closed. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born *citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the *US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. Many children of servicepeople are born outside US territory, in Germany, in Korea, in Japan, and hundreds of other places. Sure, you are absolutely correct, but are they natural born and eligible to be President. Sure, they are citizens, but they were not born in the US..And, of course, there are many non-military children of US citizens born abroad, are they eligible to be President? It's about as much of an 'issue' as Obama's was except the Dems aren't as conspiracy prone as their counterparts. LOL!!!! Florida, 2000. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 7, 12:34*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: i want him to stop hiding the document while he hypocritically claims to be transparent. You CHOOSE to BELIEVE that he is hiding something. If he provided all of the information, we would know for sure. T,the fact is this, not all of the information available on the original bc has been provided. You don't know that! You CHOOSE to "know" it, for whatever reason. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 12:30*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 6, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: that's how i feel, You can also "feel" the moon is made of green cheese. and you can feel good about this administration |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:35*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 10:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. Oh, so you agree: case closed. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born *citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the *US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. Many children of servicepeople are born outside US territory, in Germany, in Korea, in Japan, and hundreds of other places. Sure, you are absolutely correct, but are they natural born and eligible to be President. Sure, they are citizens, but they were not born in the US..And, of course, there are many non-military children of US citizens born abroad, are they eligible to be President? It's about as much of an 'issue' as Obama's was except the Dems aren't as conspiracy prone as their counterparts. LOL!!!! Florida, 2000. Really? You want to go THERE? |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:46*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:30*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 10:10*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: that's how i feel, You can also "feel" the moon is made of green cheese. and you can feel good about this administration Jehovah could show up on Earth, declare himself President of the United States and solve all the world's problems and there'd still be a bunch of people sitting on their front porches complaining about that sumbitch in the White House. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 10:03*am, ScottW wrote:
Another, far more important issue, for discussion is Obama's treasonous act against Arizona. *He is using his office to aid and abett the breaking of law, and impeding the pursuit of justice and enforcement of laws for the purpose of allowing massive demographic changes to insure future democratic party empowerment. *He's doing so against the will and well-being of both present and future generations of American citizens. Obama should be impeached and Holder should be incarcerated for this crime. ScottW I am certainly opposed to the suit against Arizona, but come on, it is in no way a crime. Holder should be replaced (not impeached) for other reasons, more notably about the Philadelphia voter intimidation case. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 6, 11:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:35*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 6, 10:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 11:37*am, Jenn wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 6, 8:35 am, Iarnrod wrote: On Jul 5, 11:16 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 5, 7:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: You haven't yet gotten to the whole "how did he travel to Pakistan in 1981" bull****, or the British dual citizenship crapola. C'mon, I've been looking forward to fresh birther meat for a few weeks. Clyde is NOT a birther, he's a conspiracy theorist. You simply wouldn't believe the information he's hiding from us. He's a pro-Communist Al Queda frontman who used to do assassinations for the CIA. It says so right on hisbirthcertificate, right next to where his political affiliation is listed as "Socialist". You'd see, if he'd only release it... I never said any such thing. I said he was not transparent. And that is of course a lie since he was transparent on this, much more so than any previous candidate for president ever. you still don't get what transparency means. as far as bc's, other presidents did not present problems for which bc's were even an issue, nor were they asked for, as in this case. What problems did he present? originally, there was the question of where he was born, since successfully resolved. that is why a bc became an issue for him when it wasn't an issue for anyone else. Oh, so you agree: case closed. In reality, Mc Cain would have had a bigger problem than Obama. \I believe that Mc Cain IS NOT a natural born *citizen, and that Obama is. See, Mc Cain was supposedly born in a hopsital in the Panama City, Republic of Panama, not in the *US territory of the Canal Zone. Yes, he was the son of an active US servicemn and his parents were residents of the Canal Zone, but he was actually born abroad, in the repblic of Panama. Many children of servicepeople are born outside US territory, in Germany, in Korea, in Japan, and hundreds of other places. Sure, you are absolutely correct, but are they natural born and eligible to be President. Sure, they are citizens, but they were not born in the US..And, of course, there are many non-military children of US citizens born abroad, are they eligible to be President? It's about as much of an 'issue' as Obama's was except the Dems aren't as conspiracy prone as their counterparts. LOL!!!! Florida, 2000. LOL!!!! The Dems accepted the word of the SCOTUS and haven't been reliving it since. LOL!!! |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 9:03*am, ScottW wrote:
For reasons we can only speculate Obama has not given permission to release the "vital record" and thus has not lived up to his commitment of transparency. Bull****. What information that is shown on your example is anybody's business, or has anything to do with anything? 2pid, what's your social security number? |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 9:03*am, ScottW wrote:
For a list of broken campaign promiseshttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/ http://www.americanprogressaction.or...n_promise.html |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 10:58*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 7, 10:03*am, ScottW wrote: Another, far more important issue, for discussion is Obama's treasonous act against Arizona. *He is using his office to aid and abett the breaking of law, and impeding the pursuit of justice and enforcement of laws for the purpose of allowing massive demographic changes to insure future democratic party empowerment. *He's doing so against the will and well-being of both present and future generations of American citizens. Obama should be impeached and Holder should be incarcerated for this crime. ScottW I am certainly opposed to the suit against Arizona, but come on, it is in no way a crime. Why would anybody be opposed to a suit to see if a law is constitutional or not? Holder should be replaced (not impeached) for other reasons, more notably about the Philadelphia voter intimidation case. As usual, when I Googled "Holder Voter Intimidation" all I got was right-wing blogs. There was, however, an opinion piece in the WSJ from somebody at the Heritage foundation. At least that was in the legitimate press. Oh well. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 7, 10:58*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 7, 10:03*am, ScottW wrote: Another, far more important issue, for discussion is Obama's treasonous act against Arizona. *He is using his office to aid and abett the breaking of law, and impeding the pursuit of justice and enforcement of laws for the purpose of allowing massive demographic changes to insure future democratic party empowerment. *He's doing so against the will and well-being of both present and future generations of American citizens. Obama should be impeached and Holder should be incarcerated for this crime. ScottW I am certainly opposed to the suit against Arizona, but come on, it is in no way a crime. Why would anybody be opposed to a suit to see if a law is constitutional or not? Holder should be replaced (not impeached) for other reasons, more notably about the Philadelphia voter intimidation case. As usual, when I Googled "Holder Voter Intimidation" all I got was right-wing blogs. There was, however, an opinion piece in the WSJ from somebody at the Heritage foundation. At least that was in the legitimate press. Owned by Murdoch, of course. Oh well. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
In article
, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: There was, however, an opinion piece in the WSJ from somebody at the Heritage foundation. At least that was in the legitimate press. Oh well. The WSJ opinion section does not share the respect given the remainder of the publication. Stephen |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 1:09*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *"Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: There was, however, an opinion piece in the WSJ from somebody at the Heritage foundation. At least that was in the legitimate press. Oh well. The WSJ opinion section does not share the respect given the remainder of the publication. It had three strikes against it: 1. It was an opinion piece. 2. It was written by somebody from the Heritage Foundation. 3. It was on the WSJ opinion page. Umpire says, "And yer oughtta here!" |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 2:26*pm, ScottW wrote:
If Arizona wins in court, and they (Obama administration) carry through with their threat to refuse to allow ICE to cooperate with Az. state and local law enforcement, continuing to impede enforcement in spite of the findings of the courts, will that be a crime IYO? No. It will be a 'victory' for state's rights and they have no claim to federal help. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 3:26*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:58*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On Jul 7, 10:03*am, ScottW wrote: Another, far more important issue, for discussion is Obama's treasonous act against Arizona. *He is using his office to aid and abett the breaking of law, and impeding the pursuit of justice and enforcement of laws for the purpose of allowing massive demographic changes to insure future democratic party empowerment. *He's doing so against the will and well-being of both present and future generations of American citizens. Obama should be impeached and Holder should be incarcerated for this crime. ScottW I am certainly opposed to the suit against Arizona, but come on, it is in no way a crime. *His actions only difference with the Muslim Brotherhoods 100 year plan of cultural invasion is they do it within the scope of the current law. Obama is using the office of the president and the executive branch to outright impede enforcement of current law for the purpose of demographic (voter) advantages for the democrat party. How is that not a crime? If Arizona wins in court, and they (Obama administration) carry through with their threat to refuse to allow ICE to cooperate with Az. state and local law enforcement, continuing to impede enforcement in spite of the findings of the courts, will that be a crime IYO? ScottW wrong, but not a crime |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 6:32*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Jul 7, 2:26*pm, ScottW wrote: If Arizona wins in court, and they (Obama administration) carry through with their threat to refuse to allow ICE to cooperate with Az. state and local law enforcement, continuing to impede enforcement in spite of the findings of the courts, will that be a crime IYO? No. It will be a 'victory' for state's rights and they have no claim to federal help. the Feds can't win a suit against Arizona for enforcing it's state law, and Arizona can't win a suit against the Feds for the Feds NOT enforicng its law |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Idiocracy in action
On Jul 7, 8:31*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:32*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Jul 7, 2:26*pm, ScottW wrote: If Arizona wins in court, and they (Obama administration) carry through with their threat to refuse to allow ICE to cooperate with Az.. state and local law enforcement, continuing to impede enforcement in spite of the findings of the courts, will that be a crime IYO? No. It will be a 'victory' for state's rights and they have no claim to federal help. the Feds can't win a suit against Arizona for enforcing it's state law, (Unless it's found to be unconstitutional) and Arizona can't win a suit against the Feds for the Feds NOT enforicng its law If Arizona wins it's on its own. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
class-action lawsuit | Audio Opinions | |||
Take action! | Audio Opinions |