Joined
·
376 Posts
Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
833 Posts
How about the punishment for the lie to the nation.
Nope. I'm sorry but this won't do. It has been well estabolished he has a valid birth certificate. If you don't believe me ask Zero himself HE would NEVER lie to you. Afeter all he promised change he never said how much change would be left in our pocket when he and the rest got done.
Joined
·
376 Posts
I like your sense of humour. Is that considered dry or witty?.
Joined
·
602 Posts
What shocks me the most about him not being an actual American, is the Bush Administration!
If he's really from Kenya, or Mars, or the other places he's claimed to be from, then the entire executive branch of a Conservative Republican Faith based administration had to conspire against America, to ensure that none of the hundreds to thousand people involved in the legal and document vetting of a presidential candidate all lied, and none of them spoke up, and they all knew what they were doing.
So Bush's DOJ, DOD, NSA, CIA, and all those other agencies, all lied. And worked together, to ensure, the Obama was able to run for the office.
Why would they do that? Why did the Bush Administration hate America enough....to do that?
If he's really from Kenya, or Mars, or the other places he's claimed to be from, then the entire executive branch of a Conservative Republican Faith based administration had to conspire against America, to ensure that none of the hundreds to thousand people involved in the legal and document vetting of a presidential candidate all lied, and none of them spoke up, and they all knew what they were doing.
So Bush's DOJ, DOD, NSA, CIA, and all those other agencies, all lied. And worked together, to ensure, the Obama was able to run for the office.
Why would they do that? Why did the Bush Administration hate America enough....to do that?
Joined
·
602 Posts
See I thought that this man ran for President, against another man, who was a Republican. And that during the running of that presidential race, a Republican administration was in control of all the executive branch bodies that are responsible for vetting people to the position of President of The United States.
See like I posted up there. In your qoute.
Where do you get the info that the current administration vets all presidential candidates? Considering they are all voted on in states that don't have any vetting requirements for canididates for the most part, and the age, citizenship and residency is all that would disqualify you, at least constitutionally, why would Bush or the agencies you cited, be involved? It would be up to someone to fil an objection...which I think has been done. Bush while a scapegoat for many things by the Dems doesn't hold up here, sorry.
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
The argument by B, like most of his posts, isn't about facts, it's about cleverness. The truth is, in the US vetting of candidates is considered anathema. Once elected, the FBI performs background checks. During the campaign the opponent is welcome to bring out anything about a candidate that they please, and they always have. Unless the conspiracy is deeply embedded in the government itself, nobody could get away with the level of deceit the current administration is accused of. So, either Obama is eligible and legal, or all of our government is complicit, including Hillary. I rather doubt Hillary would have let him continue if she could have dug anything up...
So, Butterbone, it's your sweety Hillary who is to blame.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/vetting_obama.html
Joined
·
602 Posts
That was exactly the point.
And it's not just the FBI. Every significant intelligence agency holds files, and double checks. For Obama to become president while not being a US citizen, would require the current administration at the time of the election to willfully and on purpose subvert the investigations or down right suppress that information.
Information, is power. Has been for a while now. Two cops got in trouble for trying to run information through the national system on Obama not 2 weeks ago. So you think all these other intelligence agencies, are "clean and pure" to the point that they wouldn't vett that information.
And there is no way that a republican run executive branch would miss that information, when it's obviously so easy for a handful of retirees in Omaha to find "The truth".
So she couldn't dig it up, with a team of paid researchers, but these yahoo's did?
Does it matter that this same "Kenyan Birth Certificate" was sold on e-bay in June of this year? Several months ago? No?? Of course not.
I swear I could say the sky is blue and we breath a mostly oxygen mixture and some of you guys would start biting your own face to tell me I'm wrong, and that it's all a lefty conspiracy!
This next statement, isn't meant to be insulting. Nor is it "cleverness". )
You guys are starting to actually become, what the liberals and democrats have labeled you as for the last 20 years. You are starting to act the part, that they need you to act, so that they can justify the changes they want.
Keep walking, the spike filled tiger pit is dug, covered, and they are hanging a giant photo shopped sign over it with a picture of Obama breaking a rifle in half over his kenyan birth certificate surrounded by militant socialist nurses, sitting on a toilet made of the constitution and you guys just can't stop staring at it.
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
Deleted because it's actually not the point.
I don't know who 'you guys' are, but you obviously haven't read anything I've actually said.
I have no idea how to parse that...so I won't
Look, I don't know why you come here and post nonsense as though it's wise revelation granting some epiphany to your reader.
For the record on Obama's birth certificate--since you've not realized where I stand: I believe he was born in Hawaii, his owners wouldn't have chosen him if something to basic as not US born was out there--there are plenty of true believers in their agenda to choose from. I do believe a lot of his past is being withheld for reasons unknown to me. I think there is likely sometihing embarrassing on his birth certificate, I think it rather certain that his college affiliations and writings need to be kept away from the public at present. Your shrill remarks (like the one above about walking, toilets, socialist nurses, etc) don't do anything to help your point of view. That others also post nonsense doesn't make your version more palatable.
I didn't post above to side with others and against you, I posted in reaction to your ridiculous statements.
Joined
·
602 Posts
Exactly what is rediculous? Point it out please. I'll gladly explain further any part you don't understand or that doesn't parse.
Metaphor and analogy are descriptive tools that I do use, maybe too much, but that's an opinion.
And yes, you did post just to argue "aginst me". You actually argued the same point I was making, but adding that "my sweet hillary" was to blame.
The funny part about that is your assumptions. I voted for Bush twice. I never voted for a Clinton. I wasn't old enough to vote for Clinton the first time, and during his next run, I voted for Ross Perot. Simply because I make the statement that the current administration is similar to the last administration, and that for Obama to be illegal as a candidate would have required complicitness of the previous administration, you jump onto the Lefty, Liberal tracks again.
I honestly think that the partisan banter is the only context in which you can think about politics, because it is almost all that is every displayed around here.
Your main point was this:
Sure you can include hillary if you want. I wasn't, because a democratic party member "would" in fact has legitimate reason to aid in a coverup, if her role was to be the "soft" opposition.
So you effectively jumped into it, just to make the snide remark about "cleverness" and to state the point I had made in the first place as though you were correcting me. There is no way to look at it other than that. And then you still felt the need to jump in and lay claim that my statements are rediculous.
I guess it's possible that you just couldn't understand that the point I made was exactly the same as the point you made. But I doubt it. You don't come across as an unintelligent person.
So the reasonable option is that you are jumping on the band wagon. Which is fine. But when you do it, you need to at least make sure you aren't trying to ridicule an idea you agree with.
That's just shooting yourself in the foot.
You could just as easily say, "I don't like you, cause they don't. But I don't have a legitimate reason to argue, other than...I don't like you". I'm a grown up, I can deal with that. It's not gonna hurt my feeling, and if anything it will garner greatest respect for at least having the b*lls to be honest about it.
Joined
·
2,421 Posts
I don't even know you, so you're not important enough to me to dislike you. As a point of fact: neither are 'they'...
Again, you misunderstand my point. I think your 'arguments' are thin and generally posited simply to cause discord, not to usefully further discussion. As for me agreeing with Republicans against Democrats ( or vice-versa, or sideways-upside down) I remain what I've freely admitted here, and you'd know if you actually read posts rather than looked for a phrase to try to make a clever remark over.
I have never been registered Republican or Democrat. I voted Hospers-Nathan my first election and have never voted for anybody who has been elected. My party affiliation is Libertarian and has been for longer than you've been alive.
It is my honest belief that voluntary relationships between individuals are the best way to accomplish all means of human endeavor. Realizing that human desire for organization (and unfortunately, the coercion that accompanies it) will always need to be dealt with in society, I have become willing to settle for a limited Constitutional Republic as a realistic and possible form of government.
In other words: If you damned Democrats and Republicans would discard all of your intrusive un- and contra- Constitutional law and other governance, I'd be willing to quit pushing for an autarchist form of government. After all, government is said to be the art of compromise. Politics appears to often be indistinguishable from another art--that involved in the world's oldest profession.
Butterbone, I'm not at all sure you and I truly disagree about matters of politics; I just find your means of discussion annoying and sophomoric. Just please, if you respond, try to keep your manner of correspondence rather straightforward without the convoluted rhetoric.
Joined
·
602 Posts
I almost bought it, until the last couple of lines. The strained elegance of your last post, would work, if it weren't for the fact that convoluted, and even utterly cloned rhetoric is the order of the day for the majority of posts in this section of the forum.
And since I do read the posts, read them multiple times and copy and paste them so I can side by side while I write responses, I feel confident in saying that I haven't generally seen your posts (granted in the limited time I've spent on these forums) go "to the mat" such as they have in this thread.
Finding my means of discussion annoying and sophomoric is out of my control. That's your interpretation of what I write.
I know I'm not at the level of posting graphics of the Presidents head on top of the KoolAid man! But I'm still young. Maybe someday I can aspire to those lofty heights of enlightened communication myself.
Since I do read your posts, I feel the need to point out that in this scenario it was actually you, posting against all the stated ideals you just put forth adding in these gems.
Deleted because it's actually not the point. It was in fact the point. The point of the whole discussion. I'm not sure how you are missing that. But your use of deleting conversation, is belittling and dismissive of anothers view, which in no way fits in with the ideals you have stated in your last post.
Look, I don't know why you come here and post nonsense as though it's wise revelation granting some epiphany to your reader. Furthering discussion???
The argument by B, like most of his posts, isn't about facts, it's about cleverness. Furthering discussion???
So, Butterbone, it's your sweety Hillary who is to blame. Furthering discussion???
Amazing. This man ran for office as a Democrat, against other Democrats, in a Democratically controlled state. Sat in a Senate seat representing that state -- and you blame Bush and the other Republicans...
That's the smoking gun. That's the statement you made, that shows you didn't understand, or thouroghly read my initial response in this thread. Remember that?
You made an assumption there. Then made a softball slant a couple posts later. I can understand if you read my first response and didn't "get" the mild sarcasm. But it could also be interpreted that you just didn't read it all the way through. I'm not a wordsmith, but I think in most cases I can get my thoughts across reasonably well. I just prefer to look at communication as entertainment as well as information. It's a habit I've gotten into over the years of my career trying to make information engaging and memorable through colorful descriptions, and analogies, and metaphors. Maybe it's a "bad" habit. That's opinion.
But the section I bolded isn't really much different from this statement of yours that I'll hi-lite for a second time.
As far as my commenting on your political leanings and affiliations, yes I put you squarely into the conservative camp, based completely on the statements you made, that I definately read. That's the sweety Hillary part. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that your softball slant by way of that comment was to "color" me democratic in a derogatory way. You put forth the cornerstone for that foundation.
And I can easily admit that if you had put forth this current information about your socio-political POV, I would not have made that assumption.
So...at this point I am even getting bored, proving that I read your posts. And proving that your most recently stated ideals don't seem to jive with your activity in this thread, and that your high ground for furthering discussion, and sophomoric rhetoric are really more like mole hills.
So feel free to point out how I haven't read or understood you. I'm sure it'll be just as entertaining the second time.
Now this... This post is clever!
The thing is to watch the suits filed by the military personnel. That is important since it must be answered one way or another with proof according to the rules of evidence. I cant say what I would like to have happen but the truth what ever it may be.
As for why the FBI and every one else could have dropped the ball on this well cant say we haven't seen them do that before. Somethings up for sure or else the documents would have been released already so time may tell.
Butters just thinks he/she is witty and wont let the facts of the matter get in the way of his/her ego. Hey at least that's the rumor.
As for why the FBI and every one else could have dropped the ball on this well cant say we haven't seen them do that before. Somethings up for sure or else the documents would have been released already so time may tell.
Butters just thinks he/she is witty and wont let the facts of the matter get in the way of his/her ego. Hey at least that's the rumor.
Joined
·
602 Posts
The funny part is that he and I were in agreement on the facts of the matter. The facts in agreement were that it's a non issue. No one would drop the ball that big, and there is no way it's a big conspiracy.
Now that's a shame and I'm sorry you feel that way.
Argument shouldn't be a bad thing. But at least you admitted that this is mostly about you being personally annoyed with me. That's a sign of personal growth right there.
So now you can spend your time combing over my posts so you can point out *speeling errors and really stick it to me that way!
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Join the discussion
