Posted on 01/14/2009 1:43:01 PM PST by rxsid
Unfortunately, you jump to conclusions about the intent of a post. Mine was totally in jest, sarcasm even. But you, like many others at this site in recent months/years, cannot recognize it when you read it. I refuse to label a post as sarcasm if people are incapable of understanding it.
You said — “Unfortunately, you jump to conclusions about the intent of a post. Mine was totally in jest, sarcasm even. But you, like many others at this site in recent months/years, cannot recognize it when you read it. I refuse to label a post as sarcasm if people are incapable of understanding it.”
No, you don’t have to label it and I never said you needed to. I post what I did, because whether you know what you’re saying (which you say you do)..., there are other readers and posters (on Free Republic), who *do believe* these kinds of things (and this is from what I’ve read of a lot of posts on this subject).
It’s amazing what some posters think that these Justices can do.... LOL... (there’s the humor... :-) ...)
And so, even if it doesn’t apply to you, it certainly does apply to some readers and other posters.
You own statement above indicates that you failed to recognize the sarcasm. I would appreciate it if you would keep your opinions about my statements to yourself in the future.
You said — “You own statement above indicates that you failed to recognize the sarcasm. I would appreciate it if you would keep your opinions about my statements to yourself in the future.”
Well, I can certainly refrain from posting on your comments, and I’m sure you’ll refrain from posting on mine, too... :-)
It’s a deal. Now kindly buzz off.
bzzzz...
:-)
You said — “Without Question, this will be the moment that the Justices of the SCOTUS tell Obama and Biden that they are not qualified to be President of the United States and that on January 20th at noon Chief Justice Roberts will deliver the Oath of Office to Sarah Palin!”
I’m glad to see that everyone is resorting to humor, now, in addressing this issue. It is time to move on to something useful, you know... like getting a state law (like Oklahoma) to require specific documents for vetting a candidate. That’s the way to go...
You said — “The supremes are begging for a raise.”
Now, you’ve spoken the truth there. They are..., really, they’ve been clamoring for a raise and say that Congress should have given it to them. So, I would imagine that they’re “taking their case” to the incoming President now (no joke here, it’s “real”)...
You said — “NAH, it’s tea and crumpets.”
No, it is tea and crumpets, along with an appeal for a raise. No, really! They do want a raise and they’ve already voiced this in public. So, I think they’re gonna “make a case” for the incoming President on this issue. That’s the best reason I can see for Obama being invited...
My comment about the supremes begging for a raise was said in all seriousness.
Not sure if they are paid for their summer jobs but they seem to have a relatively easy work schedule.
You said — “My comment about the supremes begging for a raise was said in all seriousness.”
Yes, it sounds like you know...
But, I would be willing to bet that many here on Free Republic don’t even know that they’ve been clamoring for a raise for a while now. And so, I really *do suspect* that the invitation for Obama *does* have to do with that raise.
Now..., mind you — I’m not saying that there is *any* kind of “quid pro quo” going on here with the Supreme Court Justices in regards to Obama’s qualifications issue, or that they would *even* speak about it with him (because they wouldn’t — at all).
Nope, they’ll handle all those Obama qualifications cases completely separately and it will have absolutely nothing to do with their raises...
No..., this is not sarcasm... I really do believe they will keep these two things separate... [but, at the same time, it does not appear that the Supreme Court is of any “judicial mind” to keep Obama from being President of the United States...]
Wasn’t that where Gore went early in Clinton’s first term where he asked “who is that guy?” when referring to a bust and it was George Washington?
Either add the </sarcasm> tag or we're going to start thinking you went over to the side with tinfoil beanies.
Actually, its Satire.
And yes, it is often times difficult to catch satire and sarcasm on these pages on this subject.
I am not a lawyer, but there is no question that the natural-born citizen issue is very important. Further, the fact that no one is vetting candidates for constitutional eligibility is equally important.
I believe there is merit in these cases. Further, Obama’s refusal to submit documents, as McCain did immediately when similar questions were raised about him, shows that he does not feel accountable to the people. More than half in a recent USA Today poll considered this a significant issue.
I think what will happen is if this becomes a problem,Obama will produce a legal Hawaii birth certificate. He was born in Hawaii. I see no evidence to believe otherwise. As for the other issue, two parents are citizens etc, it will never work.
I see nothing to stop Obama from being president...I think he was born in Hawaii. Does anyone here think about the consequences to Conservatism if the Supremes actually did what they want...death of the GOP and conservatism. It would make Bush vs Gore a walk in the park. We don’t like Obama, but over 50 % of Americans do like him...financial markets in turmoil, perhaps huge demonstrations. It would be a nightmare.
Good sarcasm always has a foundation of truth!I loves me some sarcasm!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.