[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
The fact that there are doubts and that his birthplace is in question at all, should raise doubts about the man. I think it takes several generations to become a solid citizen of ANY country.
His father was a Kenyan communist. Obama loved and worshipped his bio father. Where are BHO’s roots and loyalty?
Besides, we all know that MI-6 can fake any document…
;>
mi-6?[/quote]
Here’s a pic of a typical employee.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
<<< I’m not sure I get your extreme hatred for Obama. Yes, he’s probably the most leftists presidential nominee in a while. But the country’s drift in that direction is cultural: >>>[/quote]
BINGO!!!
That is my much larger grief of which Obama is merely a symptom. People don’t wanna hear this, but a solid Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed to be the framework for the freedom this country was founded on. That moral code in preponderance was what gave the founding fathers confidence to allow the citizens to govern themselves. Regardless of private hypocrisy on the part of some of them you can be damn sure they did not envision a country that sanctioned the murder of 40 million of it’s own unborn children.
Or the wholesale disintegration of the marriage of one man and one woman for life as the soil out of which it’s future citizens would grow. A soil that by it’s very existence taught by example the values of self control, commitment, sacrifice and faithfulness. Which disintegration would lead directly to armies of the children born in the absence of those values raping, robbing and killing us and each other on the streets of it’s cities.
Or that when the whitehouse was built it would one day be inhabited by lecherous lowlife who would defile the oval office, perjure himself before the country that elected him and then be cheered wildly at the national convention of his party.
Just as a few examples.
I’ve said repeatedly the most consequential issues are in the hearts of the citizens and by definition cannot be legislated.
The one heartening aspect of this election cycle is that Barack Obama may be too radical to be elected just yet.
My fear of him stems from the fact that I DO NOT believe in his commitment to this country and it’s security and even if I did he is entirely unqualified to command the the most powerful military in history to the ends of this country’s best interest.
Even worse than Clinton, it that’s possible, who’s foreign policy acumen was a hideous joke.
I’m also terrified of a few more activist supreme court judges that will discover and or invent law in our constitution that never existed or were even by wildest implication intended.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
<<< I’m not sure I get your extreme hatred for Obama. Yes, he’s probably the most leftists presidential nominee in a while. But the country’s drift in that direction is cultural: >>>
BINGO!!!
That is my much larger grief of which Obama is merely a symptom. People don’t wanna hear this, but a solid Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed to be the framework for the freedom this country was founded on. That moral code in preponderance was what gave the founding fathers confidence to allow the citizens to govern themselves. Regardless of private hypocrisy on the part of some of them you can be damn sure they did not envision a country that sanctioned the murder of 40 million of it’s own unborn children.
Or the wholesale disintegration of the marriage of one man and one woman for life as the soil out of which it’s future citizens would grow. A soil that by it’s very existence taught by example the values of self control, commitment, sacrifice and faithfulness. Which disintegration would lead directly to armies of the children born in the absence of those values raping, robbing and killing us and each other on the streets of it’s cities.
[/quote]
And they (the founders) were unfortunately wrong.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
<<< I’m not sure I get your extreme hatred for Obama. Yes, he’s probably the most leftists presidential nominee in a while. But the country’s drift in that direction is cultural: >>>
BINGO!!!
That is my much larger grief of which Obama is merely a symptom. People don’t wanna hear this, but a solid Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed to be the framework for the freedom this country was founded on. That moral code in preponderance was what gave the founding fathers confidence to allow the citizens to govern themselves. Regardless of private hypocrisy on the part of some of them you can be damn sure they did not envision a country that sanctioned the murder of 40 million of it’s own unborn children.
Or the wholesale disintegration of the marriage of one man and one woman for life as the soil out of which it’s future citizens would grow. A soil that by it’s very existence taught by example the values of self control, commitment, sacrifice and faithfulness. Which disintegration would lead directly to armies of the children born in the absence of those values raping, robbing and killing us and each other on the streets of it’s cities.
And they (the founders) were unfortunately wrong.[/quote]
Absolutely. Society is definitely improving the further away from their ideals we get.
What is a solid Judeo-Christian ethic?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
<<< I’m not sure I get your extreme hatred for Obama. Yes, he’s probably the most leftists presidential nominee in a while. But the country’s drift in that direction is cultural: >>>
BINGO!!!
That is my much larger grief of which Obama is merely a symptom. People don’t wanna hear this, but a solid Judeo-Christian ethic was assumed to be the framework for the freedom this country was founded on. That moral code in preponderance was what gave the founding fathers confidence to allow the citizens to govern themselves. Regardless of private hypocrisy on the part of some of them you can be damn sure they did not envision a country that sanctioned the murder of 40 million of it’s own unborn children.
Or the wholesale disintegration of the marriage of one man and one woman for life as the soil out of which it’s future citizens would grow. A soil that by it’s very existence taught by example the values of self control, commitment, sacrifice and faithfulness. Which disintegration would lead directly to armies of the children born in the absence of those values raping, robbing and killing us and each other on the streets of it’s cities.
And they (the founders) were unfortunately wrong.
Absolutely. Society is definitely improving the further away from their ideals we get.[/quote]
Can’t tell whether this is sarcasm?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
The fact that there are doubts and that his birthplace is in question at all, should raise doubts about the man. I think it takes several generations to become a solid citizen of ANY country.
His father was a Kenyan communist. Obama loved and worshipped his bio father. Where are BHO’s roots and loyalty?
Besides, we all know that MI-6 can fake any document…
;>
mi-6?
Here’s a pic of a typical employee.
[/quote]
Look how handsome comrade Vladdy was back in the day. This isn’t going to come to anything or it would have by now.
Are we certain he’s even terrestrial?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Hog Ear wrote:
When Hillary was getting her 2nd wind I remember her camp saying something about Obama would have to pass a security clearance before he could be considered for VP. Did they know about this all along?
That’s right, it went over my head at the time, but you would think they would have played that card by now if they had it.[/quote]
Not really.
Liberals, while (rightly) decrying racism, are generally among the most racist people there are. For almost any decision regarding a person or group, for them skin color will almost always be a key component of their decision. Which is racist: being “reverse racist” is still racist.
So for example, someone could mention that a liberal candidate, if white, is skinny and publish some foolish speculation that perhaps voters will not connect with them on account of finding it hard to relate to a man who is a stick figure, and this would fine to a liberal if the candidate is white – they might call it stupid but not racist and would not care about it a great deal – but if the candidate is black, then they go into a frenzy of denouncing bringing up the skinniness as being “racist” and just outrageously unacceptable.
Of course, the racism is in themselves for judging the situation differently depending on the skin color of the person being talked about.
Anyway, a liberal can’t deal with criticism of a black person, generally speaking. It must be racist, they think, to do so.
This IMO tremendously limited Hillary Clinton in what she and her campaign said about Obama. Either because most “attacks” would have been called racist by other liberals, or because she herself is hamstrung by feeling she can’t say bad things about a black person because “that would be racist.”
When of course, the actually racist thing is deciding on the basis of skin color whether you can or cannot make a totally un-race-related criticism of a person. But that’s the liberal way, for the most part.
(I don’t speak of classical liberalism, but rather the modern day variety.)
So no, I don’t at all think that Hillary would necessarily have brought this up if it’s both true and she knew about it. She may well have feared or been personally unwilling to do so for the above reason.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
<<< So no, I don’t at all think that Hillary would necessarily have brought this up if it’s both true and she knew about it. She may well have feared or been personally unwilling to do so for the above reason.[/quote]
Good points all around, but in the case of a candidacy being legitimately proven to be illegal I think they could have gotten away with saying that race was not the motivation and even if they didn’t think they could there’s a 100 ways to leak it through somebody else. I can’t imagine the power hungry Clintons not using that if they had it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Hog Ear wrote:
When Hillary was getting her 2nd wind I remember her camp saying something about Obama would have to pass a security clearance before he could be considered for VP. Did they know about this all along?
That’s right, it went over my head at the time, but you would think they would have played that card by now if they had it.
Not really.
Liberals, while (rightly) decrying racism, are generally among the most racist people there are. For almost any decision regarding a person or group, for them skin color will almost always be a key component of their decision. Which is racist: being “reverse racist” is still racist.
So for example, someone could mention that a liberal candidate, if white, is skinny and publish some foolish speculation that perhaps voters will not connect with them on account of finding it hard to relate to a man who is a stick figure, and this would fine to a liberal if the candidate is white – they might call it stupid but not racist and would not care about it a great deal – but if the candidate is black, then they go into a frenzy of denouncing bringing up the skinniness as being “racist” and just outrageously unacceptable.
Of course, the racism is in themselves for judging the situation differently depending on the skin color of the person being talked about.
Anyway, a liberal can’t deal with criticism of a black person, generally speaking. It must be racist, they think, to do so.
This IMO tremendously limited Hillary Clinton in what she and her campaign said about Obama. Either because most “attacks” would have been called racist by other liberals, or because she herself is hamstrung by feeling she can’t say bad things about a black person because “that would be racist.”
When of course, the actually racist thing is deciding on the basis of skin color whether you can or cannot make a totally un-race-related criticism of a person. But that’s the liberal way, for the most part.
(I don’t speak of classical liberalism, but rather the modern day variety.)
So no, I don’t at all think that Hillary would necessarily have brought this up if it’s both true and she knew about it. She may well have feared or been personally unwilling to do so for the above reason.[/quote]
Word up, Good Doctor.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
<<< So no, I don’t at all think that Hillary would necessarily have brought this up if it’s both true and she knew about it. She may well have feared or been personally unwilling to do so for the above reason.
Good points all around, but in the case of a candidacy being legitimately proven to be illegal I think they could have gotten away with saying that race was not the motivation and even if they didn’t think they could there’s a 100 ways to leak it through somebody else. I can’t imagine the power hungry Clintons not using that if they had it.[/quote]
I don’t think though they would have believed it to be a finisher. It’s very unlikely it would be.
As a similar example, consider that it is in the highest law of the land (or that which at least is given lip service as being the highest law in the land) that a person who has committed treason cannot be a US Senator. It’s one of the explicitly stated disqualifications.
Now, there’s no question, it’s not disputed by anyone, that Kerry while still an officer in fact met with the enemy in wartime (he met in France with North Vietnamese leaders) without authorization by any superior.
That alone is defined as treason in the UCMJ, but Kerry even went beyond this by not only meeting with the enemy, but taking their talking points and pushing them on the American public as being what America ought to do. An undoubted act which simply as a matter of fact is defined as treason.
But has the Senate ever remotely considered expelling Kerry on that or ground? Most certainly not. Has it ever stopped many if any Kerry voters in Massachusetts from voting for him, election after election? It certainly has not.
Were 49% of the voters in 2004 still willing to vote for him for President even though his act of treason was well known and not at all denied by Kerry or anyone as having been done? Yup.
By comparison, any technicality of where Obama may have been born is even less likely to be capable of finishing him off.
If Hillary had been sure it would do the job, I do expect she probably would have risked bringing it out, but it seems quite likely that she understood that those who would vote for Obama truly would not care about this and if Obama wins the vote.
There will be no successful legal or Congressional action to deny him the presidency, just as there has been no successful legal or Senate action to deny Kerry his Senate seat.
Personal opinion only on that.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
<<< Now, there’s no question, it’s not disputed by anyone, that Kerry while still an officer in fact met with the enemy in wartime (he met in France with North Vietnamese leaders) without authorization by any superior.
That alone is defined as treason in the UCMJ, but Kerry even went beyond this by not only meeting with the enemy, but taking their talking points and pushing them on the American public as being what America ought to do.
An undoubted act which simply as a matter of fact is defined as treason. >>>[/quote]
I have said on these very boards that I voted for GWB in 04 for the expressed purpose of keeping that treasonous lowlife Kerry out of the Whitehouse in those words. A man who would’ve been executed had he committed those crimes during WWII or even Korea.
Treason is also the only charge for which you can lose your congressional pension, but that isn’t going to stop Kerry from collecting his either.
I also said earlier in this thread that solid Obama supporters would vote for him if he were born on Mars.
However, even if the Hillary gestapo were doubtful of the lethality of the story, if they were at all confident in it’s authenticity, why not use it? I could see it backfiring if they put some eggs in that basket and it turned out not to be true.
Charges of an unsubstantiated smear campaign would be trumpeted from the hilltops, but if it were actually demonstrable what were there be to lose by simply reporting the truth about something as serious as the legitimacy of his natural citizenship?
The pathetic thing is, in the past, someone with his background would have been investigated for anti American associations and activities nevermind being considered for president. I still can’t even believe I’m typing stuff like this. Where the hell are we headed?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The pathetic thing is, in the past, someone with his background would have been investigated for anti American associations and activities nevermind being considered for president. I still can’t even believe I’m typing stuff like this. Where the hell are we headed?[/quote]
Ah, when will those great McCarthy years ever come back…?
Bill is even better in the political forum than he is in the steroid forum.
Thank you for participating in here, Mr. Roberts.
I was kind of reluctant to, as some percentage of customers may not “appreciate my views,” but hey, it’s what I believe and hopefully I stated it civilly. Thanks! 
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I was kind of reluctant to, as some percentage of customers may not “appreciate my views,” but hey, it’s what I believe and hopefully I stated it civilly. Thanks! :)[/quote]
Civility is overrated.
Hmmm… After reading the link Hog Ear posted originally, and then that link’s source of information ( http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html ) as personal opinion I don’t think this is going to get far unless there is a major improvement in rhetorical method of arguing it.
They’re using what I call the Marcia Clark method of presenting an argument. Also called the losing method.
This method comprises coming up with an absolutely mind-numbing and seemingly endless list of reasons, and arguing them all in excruciating detail. You get extra Marcia Clark points if you argue them all in excruciating and exceedingly technical detail.
It generally fails for several reasons. One is because of being inherently confusing and mind-numbing.
Another is because with the vast list of reasons, the other side can always find some that enough of an argument can be made against to cast some doubt upon them – especially as the person trying to judge the thing has been thoroughly benumbed by the vast quantity of argument.
And when the other side accomplishes this, then the person judging it wonders if perhaps all of the points might have been invalid.
In contrast, picking just one or a very few truly strong points that you know will stand up and driving them home all the way is how to argue successfully.
That’s what they need to do with this, IMO.
Also a serious concern with the whole thing is that the theory that the Daily Kos fabricated this image, but a real birth certificate does exist, they just couldn’t get their hands on it so they decided to commit fraud for their guy, is not in the slightest unreasonable. It could well be.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
The pathetic thing is, in the past, someone with his background would have been investigated for anti American associations and activities nevermind being considered for president.
I still can’t even believe I’m typing stuff like this. Where the hell are we headed?
Ah, when will those great McCarthy years ever come back…?[/quote]
The existence of excess does not negate the legitimacy of the endeavor itself.
The toleration of thoroughgoing espionage is the logical conclusion if this is not the case.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I was kind of reluctant to, as some percentage of customers may not “appreciate my views,” but hey, it’s what I believe and hopefully I stated it civilly. Thanks!
Civility is overrated. [/quote]
I hope you mean that because mine is going out the window fast watching this inept limp wristed santa claus give his speech.