Posted on 11/15/2008 6:48:02 PM PST by palmer
You set Gold standard for that.
Maybe you could start asking for donations and start your own forum, then you could tell everyone how stupid old Jim and his loonies are.
Oh wait there already are a couple of those, maybe they would accept your donation and help.
Hopping to another forum to bash people is not something I do, but your friends have no such scruples: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=6289#6289
I know that the governor of Hawaii is a friend of Palin, and she was speaking very favorable of her. That said, the other person may be an Obama fan, or democrat....it just happened I heard it on the news and didn’t want people getting their hopes up, as media seemed to think it was now settled with that statement. If someone wants to prove it isn’t true, then I hope they do....just wouldn’t expect any help from any media types.
I had four mails on this telling me I didn’t know what I was saying..so don’t take comment personally.
Against my better judgment I'm sure I'll find myself on another BC thread. These are sure to be really entertaining after Inauguration Day! The wailing and gnashing of teeth, sputtering between sobs, "B-B-BUT HE'S A KENYAN!!!" as the rest of the nation gets on with their lives.
That's gonna be too good to pass up.
If all you need is entertainment, there are plenty of venues. If you consider this to be a tinfoil-hat, moonbot witch hunt, and it entertains you, good. You may learn to be more appreciative of our country. It was not an election, it was a coup—full of fraud & lies, big money from foreign interests, obstruction of voters & more which will produce, if allowed to stand, a presidency more in line with any 3rdworld dictatorship.
Then they are not my friends, period.
If someone is forcing you at gunpoint to go into the threads call the police. Otherwise if you don’t like them DON’T GO INTO THEM!
It also was started when the dems tried to get McCain disqualified.
I almost wanted McCain to be disqualified because wouldn’t it have woken up some of the pro illegal crowd that someone who was born outside the US because HIS FATHER WAS SERVING OUR COUNTRY couldn’t be President but if his mother had been an illegal and skipped across the border to give birth in Texas he would be.
Hw about linking me to the other sites where these people are commenting about you, this just looks like they are pointing out that you have been posting on other sites and garnered some criticism.
Doesn't matter though you and I are poles apart. If I find something that we agree on I will be surprised.
Don’t look at what Fox News says. I don’t care what they say and I never made any claim as to what Fox News said or didn’t say.
I said that neither Governor Lingle nor any Hawaii state official has said that Obama was born in Hawaii, and every word you posted supports precisely what I said.
Whatever.
You don't know your butt from your elbow. You cannot even speak correctly and use terms properly. Here's the deal, Palmer. If you are so sure that what you say is true, then put your money where your mouth is. Bet me that I'm wrong, if you've got the stones, which I know you don't because every, other Leftist loon like yourself who thought that he was smarter than I am has wussed out.
I've got 100 times more real evidence than you would ever get in all of your so-called experts combined. They are also clueless.
Who the Hell are you? What do you know about graphics? Photoshop? Scanners? First of all, what the hell is a "real artifact?" if you're referring to objects photographed as "artifacts," then you are not even using the word correctly.
I don't have to answer to you on your schedule. I have my own, and work this important cannot be rushed. It will be done when it's done, and TS if it isn't to your liking.
Again, name one thing that you think is real about Factcheck photos, and one you feel strongly enough to bet me. I can prove that every photo taken by Factcheck is bogus. What can you prove?
You mentioned how photo #5 could be manufactured. You got that from me. You didn'tr come up with it on your own, and that's why I gave you conflicting information before cutting you off totally.
C'mon Palmer. Man up. Show me that you're not like everyone else who simply flaps his gums and expects others to believe them.
You picked on the wrong guy, I can tell you that. I'd enjoy making you look stupid, but you're doing a bang-up job all by yourself.
if you're referring to objects photographed as "artifacts," then you are not even using the word correctly
A "real artifact" is an item that exists, artifact is shorthand. Let's call it "object" instead. The object in my discussion refers to the real piece of paper that was photographed by factcheck. The piece of paper may be forged, created in photoshop, whatever, but the salient fact is that it exists. The photo could also be altered after it is taken.
In the case of photo #5, the piece of paper that was photographed existed in the real world in the form that we see in the photo. There is a possibility that the photo was subsequently altered, but that's not easy to do (unlike with a low res scan). Your theory was originally that the photo we saw was substantially different from the object in reality. You proposed that the seal could be photoshopped on which is basically impossible. You said it was perfectly round and it wasn't.
You mentioned how photo #5 could be manufactured. You got that from me.
My original posting in this thread is my original information, not obtained from anyone and certainly not you. I challenge you to show me a post of yours where you mention this before I did: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2127901/posts?page=201#201
The Annenberg image, however created, had to be printed, then embossed, then photographed. The person who photographed it would know where it came from and trusted that source.
That source would have to obtain a seal to perform the embossing and that is why the difference is important. To obtain and use a seal would be noticed by witnesses which so far have not appeared.
I wrote that to point out that your analysis needed some updating. As a result, I suspect that we will get a much more plausible explanation of the factcheck photos from you soon.
I assure you that is not the case. Everything I say about this topic or any related topic, I have said in this forum in public threads.
You wrote: U.S. citizenship is a birth right that cannot be taken from you by anyone, not even your parents in the case of a minor.
—
However, he was born with dual citizenship. The framers of the Constitution grandfathered themselves into Article II, Section 1 so that any of them could be president, but Obama cannot do that. Therefore, he cannot be a natural-born citizen.
Obama was at birth:
- A British subject
- If born in Hawaii, an American citizen
Can such a person be said to be a natural-born citizen? The answer would appear to be no, because the Constitution grandfathered living U.S. citizens (who had dual citizenship — U.S. and British) into Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.
If the framers knew that THEY were not natural-born citizens, and had to write “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” into the Constitution in order to allow any of them to qualify for president, then Obama cannot possibly be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen — EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.
If you disagree, please tell me why.
Yeah. He was born a hermaphrodite.
just kidding, i think...
If you weren't over the target, you wouldn't be getting flack.
This thread, via both its formatting and lead content, not only seems to violate site rules regarding personal attacks, but also seems to be trying to discourage the current effort of upholding the integrity of the Constitution, the very same goal on which FR was founded.
If it had been merely one poster's rant on an ongoing thread against anyone/everyone legitimately questioning the Constitutional qualifications of the Obomb, that'd be one thing.
But having seen the generally respectful tone that's been carried on within the BC threads that I've encountered, this thread is, by comparison, both slanderous and over the top.
The only dog I have in this fight is that our Republic not be surrendered to a marxist usurper intent on destroying the freedoms outlined in that most precious of our founding documents, our Constitution.
/.02
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.