Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hawaii Elections Clerk Tim Adams Says There is No Obama Birth Certificate from Hawaii
BBCW ^ | 3 March 2012 | Bungalow Bill

Posted on 03/03/2012 7:02:42 AM PST by Erik Latranyi

Just a day after Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Apaio presented proof the birth certificate presented by Barack Obama as proof he meets Constitutional eligibility to be president is a fraud, we have a story coming out of Hawaii that may provide problems for Obama.

Jerome Corsi writes:

Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

“During the course of my employment,” Adams swears in the affidavit (viewable in full as part 1 and part 2), “I became aware that many requests were being made to the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division, the Hawaii Office of Elections, and the Hawaii Department of Health from around the country to obtain a copy of then-Senator Barack Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate.”

As he inquired about the birth certificate, he says, his supervisors told him that the records were not on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.

“Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health,” Adams’ affidavit reads, “and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government.”


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: arizona; birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; corsi; hawaii; joearpaio; kenyanbornmuzzie; naturalborncitizen; obama; sheriffjoe; timadams
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 551-563 next last
To: Blado
I also believe that poster Harlan1196 is in fact an Obot as you suggest.

DiogenesLamp argues that based on the poster’s alleged conservative opinions on other topics in the past, he is not.

I was referring to El Sordo. I have looked at some of El Sordo's past posting history and commentary, and I see him take conservative stances on other issues. I have also looked at Harlan1196's commentary, and I do not recall seeing him do anything OTHER than defending Obama's legitimacy. I am suspecting he is an Obot myself.

In the spy world it is important to establish a credible persona that allows the infiltrator to be accepted.

Therefore an aspiring Obot would likely strive to appear conservative an all other things of lesser importance.

These topics might be standard boilerplate issues like abortion, socialized medicine, gun control etc.

This is only for the clever ones. I have argued with many of them, and I find a lot of them really really really do not want to talk about Abortion. I think in some cases, they just can't help letting their true feelings come out.

However, the most important issue to Obama has to be that his work so far be preserved. If he is removed from office for the frauds and felonies he as committed he will have lost it all, up to and including ObamaCare, two socialists on the Supreme Court and every other bill he signed into law. All would be nullified. It would be a major catastrophe for the Left. This is why Obots like Harlan are sent out to ridicule, persuade, cajole, defame and demoralize conservatives as “Birthers”... to make anyone “ashamed” to even think “Birther” thoughts.

Getting everything Obama did overturned is such a worthy goal that I simply cannot understand why there is anyone on the conservative side who would defend him. Even if they feel differently, isn't it better to just remain silent and let people try to take him down? Why defend him?

Notice all the classical Alinsky tactics he uses in his responses. In particular ridicule, name calling, and “shaming”.

Note also the sheer amount of time and energy he expends on this and similar threads defending Obama. I believe he must be paid well by his handlers for his considerable effort.

Or he is a "true believer." I have dealt with loony Democrats in the past. They will pull some dirty sh*t. Back in 1992, I put a sign up on my property next to a highway. It said "Clinton Supports Homosexuals." Within a week, they doused it with Gasoline and set it on fire. (I put it right back up again.) The Following week, they set my grassland on fire. Fortunately the local fire department was called and put it out before it reached my house. This was in the middle of the night.

To say that they are unhinged is an understatement. They are foaming at the mouth lunatics who can sometimes pretend to be normal.

Of course we also can look at his FR home page where he sets up a convincing past. But the recent sign-up date is a red flashing light.

His FR Home page is indeed inconsistent with his behavior. I find it hard to believe that someone could be so conservative on their home page, yet want to defend Obama. I do have one possible explanation for it though. On another website, there is a long serving Navy Officer whom I respect greatly. His mother is Italian, and his father is American. He was born in Italy. He is absolutely convinced that he is a "natural born citizen" and will not accept any argument which says otherwise.

I think this is an emotional response, and not a thoughtful one. I suspect that there are other people who are in some similar situation, that although they are conservative, they simply cannot accept the fact that THEY (or their Children) are not "natural born citizens." These people will defend Obama's claim, simply because they worry about their own. Just an idea.

Poster El Sordo may also be an Obot, although his sign-up date is much earlier. But then how do we know this the original Sordo? Maybe his account was hacked or sold (Soros has lots of money and everyone has a price). Maybe Sordo changed his ideology... it happens. Look at the case of Barry Goldwater, or David Brock.

It happens. I personally think Peggy Noonan has gone over to the other side, among others. On the other hand, El Sordo still writes things as though he were a conservative.

There ARE actual, real bonified, true conservatives who refuse to accept either the Birth Certificate, or the "Natural born citizen" issue. They simply will not accept it. The Ace of Spades HQ is filled with such people. I just saw there today where one of my most obnoxious debating opponents (Calling himself "Charlie Brown's Dildo") is hosting a meetup event in New Jersey for people who frequent Ace of Spades Website.

MOST of the conservatives on that website dismiss the birthcertificate/eligibility issue, and will argue viciously in favor of Obama's legitimacy. (Same thing with Allahpundit and Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air. And let us not Forget Eric Erickson of "Red State.)

This behavior has always puzzled me. Why someone would defend our enemy, I simply don't understand, but none the less I recognize we have Conservatives who will do so. As for Harlan1196, If all he does is defend Obama, I don't see much use for him even if he isn't an Obot.

351 posted on 03/08/2012 6:33:27 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You know the real reason he was sent those copies? It was to force him to choose between accepting them as real or supporting the birthers. A come to Jesus moment so to speak. Politics is a dirty business and the Chicago crowd are the dirtiest around.

Why would he need to be "forced" to accept anything?

352 posted on 03/08/2012 6:33:27 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
You would be more persuasive if you omitted the adjectives, e.g. “birther”. The word is partisan, emotional rather than an appeal to reason, and damages your credibility.

He has no credibility in my opinion. I regard him as a loon.

353 posted on 03/08/2012 6:34:42 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
A jet flight out of Kenya either to Hawaii or Washington state in the time frame given is possible. It is also possible Obama had a different birth date than the one given/recorded by Hawaii records. There are too many dots to be connected for me to dismiss a Kenyan birth by Obama.

I put little stock in the possibility of a Kenyan birth. Here is an Article from American Thinker which convinced me that it is extremely unlikely.

If other information comes forward which supports the theory, I will of course re-evaluate. I put no stock whatsoever in what people TELL me the Kenyan Grandmother says. I also put no stock in any document purported to have come from Kenya. As far as i'm concerned, they have the evidential value of a Nigerian scam letter.

354 posted on 03/08/2012 6:41:15 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

If Obama was required to submit a BC in a legal proceeding, he would not use an electronic copy. Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and that would be that.

Obama send Kent those BCs as a political message - he had no legal requirement to give Kemp anything.

It was a sharp, hard knock on Kemp’s forehead to focus him on what he was getting himself into if he backed the birthers.

Birthers have this fantasy that if they could only get Obama’s BC into court, it would be exposed as a forgery and and that Hawaiian corruption would be revealed.

Obama reminded Kemp that if push came to shove in a court of law, Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and the court would accept without question. Kemp is no fool.


355 posted on 03/08/2012 6:41:40 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Maybe forced was too strong a word - lets just say that it laid out his choices very clearly. Accept conventional wisdom that the BCs were valid or go down the birther path.

His office accepted those birth certificates without question or comment.


356 posted on 03/08/2012 6:46:18 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
If Obama was required to submit a BC in a legal proceeding, he would not use an electronic copy. Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and that would be that.

Obama send Kent those BCs as a political message - he had no legal requirement to give Kemp anything.

It was a sharp, hard knock on Kemp’s forehead to focus him on what he was getting himself into if he backed the birthers.

Birthers have this fantasy that if they could only get Obama’s BC into court, it would be exposed as a forgery and and that Hawaiian corruption would be revealed.

Obama reminded Kemp that if push came to shove in a court of law, Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and the court would accept without question. Kemp is no fool.

Hitler's brown shirts twisted arms to get people to do what they wanted. I think Obama and his forces are the modern embodiment of the same.

I believe Obama's long form is a "legal forgery" created by DOH under Court Order to create a replacement birth certificate designed to look like an original. I don't see how his lawyers would accept being involved in anything which they knew to be illegal, and that might eventually get discovered.

Circumstantial evidence indicates Obama was adopted twice, and it makes it highly likely that his original was sealed and that he was issued a new document by Court Order.

I find this possibility highly persuasive because the same thing happened to me. *I* am adopted, and *I* have a replacement birth certificate.

357 posted on 03/08/2012 6:53:17 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Maybe forced was too strong a word - lets just say that it laid out his choices very clearly. Accept conventional wisdom that the BCs were valid or go down the birther path.

No, "FORCED" is precisely the correct word. Brown Shirts also wore suits when they needed to.

His office accepted those birth certificates without question or comment.

It takes a strong man to stand up against the forces of darkness, rather than join them as you seem to have done.


358 posted on 03/08/2012 6:59:27 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
If Obama was required to submit a BC in a legal proceeding, he would not use an electronic copy.
He was required to by judicial order and he and his attorney refused to show up much less bring the ordered objects.

Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and that would be that.
It wasn't Hawaii's responsibility to send anything in. It was the defendant's responsibility to appear with it and he didn't.

Obama send Kent those BCs as a political message...
Isn't that against the law?

...he had no legal requirement to give Kemp anything.
So why did Jablonski send them to Kemp instead of showing up in court as ordered with the required objects?

It was a sharp, hard knock on Kemp’s forehead to focus him on what he was getting himself into if he backed the birthers.
You don't seem to have a problem with the coercion of public officials.

Birthers have this fantasy that if they could only get Obama’s BC into court, it would be exposed as a forgery and and that Hawaiian corruption would be revealed.
It figures that you would have such a jaundiced view of the issue. Thanks for sharing it.

Obama reminded Kemp that if push came to shove in a court of law, Hawaii would simply send the court a certified copy of the COLB and the court would accept without question. Kemp is no fool.
Again, you don't seem to understand...the Defendant was ordered to appear with the required objects. The State of Hawaii had no obligations placed upon it.

Is today a day off for the Harlan of yesterday?

359 posted on 03/08/2012 7:03:21 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
His office accepted those birth certificates without question or comment.
His office was sent those possibly forged items without any knowledge that they were being sent to them.


You can't know what's in an envelope until you open it, can you?

360 posted on 03/08/2012 7:11:30 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

1. Yes - he refused to submit it and the judge was prepared to order a summary judgement.

2. So Obama would give the judge a paper copy. The plaintiffs would question it. To settle the issue, the judge or SoS would request Hawaii send them a certified copy directly. Easy to see how it would play out.

3. Don’t know if it was against the law. Do you think Obama cares?

4. He sent it to Kemp as a political message.

5. Pointing out political reality is not supporting it. There is an entire thread about how the media was threatened to keep the CCP out of the news. Do you think for a second that sending two BCs as a political message would bother Obama? He plays bare knuckled politics.

6. Two separate issues. He ignored the court. He send a message to the SoS.


361 posted on 03/08/2012 7:19:28 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

You really think they were not opened and looked at? What evidence do you have to support this?


362 posted on 03/08/2012 7:21:39 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
1. Yes - he refused to submit it...
So why would he refuse to show up and submit it? Why not just show up with it and be done with it? It doesn't compute.

2. So Obama would give the judge a paper copy.
Then why didn't he show up and do that?
The plaintiffs would question it.
Is that why he didn't show up with it?
To settle the issue, the judge or SoS would request Hawaii send them a certified copy directly.
The Defendant was ordered to produce evidence, not the State of Hawaii! The State of Hawaii had no obligation before the court.
Easy to see how it would play out.
I can imagine it playing out in a completely different way than that.

3. Don’t know if it was against the law.
And you don't care to know either, do you?
Do you think Obama cares?
He should.

4. He sent it to Kemp as a political message.
So you agree with the coercion of public officials?

5 and 6 aren't even worth responding to.

From earlier...Where have I threatened you?
Is today a day off for the Harlan of yesterday? You're far more...verbose.

363 posted on 03/08/2012 7:36:17 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
You really think they were not opened and looked at?
Well of course it was eventually opened up. Kemp sent a reply.

What evidence do you have to support this?
I never claimed they didn't open it up you dolt!
I stated that he couldn't know what he was being sent until the envelope was opened.

364 posted on 03/08/2012 7:39:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Don’t know if it was against the law.

@O.C.G.A. 16-10-94 (2010)

16-10-94. Tampering with evidence
(a) A person commits the offense of tampering with evidence when, with the intent to prevent the apprehension or cause the wrongful apprehension of any person or to obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly destroys, alters, conceals, or disguises physical evidence or makes, devises, prepares, or plants false evidence.

So what do you think now?

365 posted on 03/08/2012 7:54:51 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

How did he conceal his BC? He refused to participate in an administrative hearing and was prepared to accept a default judgement.

Since he willing to accept a guilty verdict then how can you say he was obstructing the prosecution? He made the prosecution’s job easier.


366 posted on 03/08/2012 8:12:29 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
How did he conceal his BC?
Did the Defendant present his original long form BC before the court as ordered so a judgement could be rendered?

Since he --- willing to accept a guilty verdict then how can you
say he was obstructing the prosecution?

You should really invest in another software program. The one you have leaves you hanging.

367 posted on 03/08/2012 8:23:21 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

1. Because he thinks he is above the law? Because his lawyer correctly anticipated the outcome if he didn’t show up? Because he doesn’t want to address the issue in 50 different states but wants one case that he can take to the Federal Courts for a single decision? Given time I am sure someone can think of others.

2. See above. Since things worked out to his favor, it looks like he had good legal advice.

3. Of course he should care. Why do you think Obama gives a rat’s ass about the law?

4. Don’t think it is right. Think it should be expected - do you think Obama will fight fairly?

I think I will avoid the personal stuff from now on - your soliloquy on zotting yesterday made me realize that I don’t know all the personalities involved here at FR. Safer to stick to the facts and arguments so thing don’t get out of hand.

Same old Harlan - I’ve been fighting a virus for a week or so and today is the first day I have felt good. I am by nature a verbose person.


368 posted on 03/08/2012 8:24:23 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
How did he conceal his BC?
And in case you hadn't noticed there are several aspects considered in that law, not just concealing something.
369 posted on 03/08/2012 8:26:06 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

How did not showing the BC change anything? There were two possible negative outcomes for Obama:

1. Show BC and get kicked off ballot.
2. Not show BC and get kicked off ballot.

Number 2 was the outcome until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.

So how did not showing the BC materially effect the outcome of the hearing?


370 posted on 03/08/2012 8:31:48 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I think I will avoid the personal stuff from now on - your soliloquy on zotting yesterday made me realize that I don’t know all the personalities involved here at FR. Safer to stick to the facts and arguments so thing don’t get out of hand.
I just don't see it happening. Leopards don't change their spots.
371 posted on 03/08/2012 8:33:31 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Have you send a letter to the Georgia AG pointing this out? What do you expect me to do? I have already said several times that Obama has no respect for the law.


372 posted on 03/08/2012 8:36:21 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
How did not showing the BC change anything?
Would showing the BC have changed things?

So how did not showing the BC materially effect the outcome of the hearing?
Would showing the BC have materially effected the outcome of the hearing?

You ask with rhetoric, I answer with rhetoric.

373 posted on 03/08/2012 8:38:03 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Have you send a letter to the Georgia AG pointing this out?
Given his position and experience he should already know that.
It shouldn't have to be pointed out to him.

What do you expect me to do?
I expect you'll keep doing what you've been doing...defending the indefensible.

I have already said several times that Obama has no respect for the law.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

So why do you defend his actions so strenuously?

374 posted on 03/08/2012 8:43:07 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Showing the BC would not have changed the possible negative outcomes - he would have been off the ballot regardless.

He was off the ballot until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.

Accepting a default judgement means there is no hearing, which means there is no requirement to produce evidence. Which means there was no evidence to conceal. I don’t think any court in the land would say that “I am guilty” could be construed as an attempt to conceal evidence.


375 posted on 03/08/2012 8:54:15 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

So it looks like the Georgia AG disagrees with your interpretation of the law.


376 posted on 03/08/2012 8:55:33 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Showing the BC would not have changed the possible negative outcomes...
I don't see how you could know that so I'll chalk that up to your stating your opinion.
...he would have been off the ballot regardless.

Again, I don't see how you could know that so I'll chalk that up to your stating your opinion.

He was off the ballot until the plaintiffs opened their mouths.
How do you know that? Silence got them nothing and Malihi could have ruled any way he chose, as is evident.

377 posted on 03/08/2012 9:04:08 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So it looks like the Georgia AG disagrees with your interpretation of the law.
More supposition.
378 posted on 03/08/2012 9:10:10 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

What other possible negative outcome was there. This was an administrative hearing - the only issue at hand was whether Obama was eligible to be on the ballot.

Only two possible results - on the ballot or off the ballot.

So you tell me - what difference would the BC make? On the ballot or off the ballot are the only two choices.


379 posted on 03/08/2012 9:11:25 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
What other possible negative outcome was there.
So obtuse.
Wouldn't a negative outcome have caused a ripple effect all across the nation and result in more than one State not allowing ballot access?
380 posted on 03/08/2012 9:17:13 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

So the plaintiffs should not have screwed things up by rejecting the default judgement.

There were only two outcomes the judge could have come to - on the ballot or off the ballot. A default judgement would have taken him off the ballot.


381 posted on 03/08/2012 9:22:54 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

bump


382 posted on 03/08/2012 9:28:36 AM PST by Tribune7 (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
So the plaintiffs should not have screwed things up by rejecting the default judgement.
How could they know they would receive a default judgement?
Malihi could have ruled any way he chose no matter what the plaintiffs' attorneys had been told in chambers. In chamber conversations have no weight in the court room.
That's further evidenced by the fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys had been told in chambers that each case would be tried separately and they would up being bundled together, just like they were in the latest trial.

Isn't it possible that a default judgement wasn't an automatic "done deal" as expected?
Couldn't Malihi have rendered something other than a default judgement?

383 posted on 03/08/2012 9:43:47 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

When the judge tells the plaintiffs he would render a default judgement and then says the same thing in his written decision, then it is reasonable to assume they would have gotten a default judgement.


384 posted on 03/08/2012 9:48:30 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Blado; LucyT; Red Steel; Brown Deer; Candor7; Las Vegas Ron; onyx

I agree with everything you said. We have seen many 1998-2001 zots in the past few months.

I have said it on here on FR many times and I will say it again, sign up date and longevity mean nothing by themselves. The past posting history tells the tale...usually. a 10 year old member may have been a conservative long ago and like you said, somewhere along the line, they remarried a flaming lib, friends, new family members, whoever changed their mind yet they still have their FR account that is 10+ years old.

An Obot or a good liberal troll is on a mission. To change minds, create doubts and concerns. They have to create a persona to avoid detection. That’s what separates the good mods from the MINO’s on any internet forum. It isn’t always easy to bust a concern troll or Obot, Kerrybot, Clintonbot or whoeverbot, especially if they have baked that name for a few years.

I recall a couple of years ago, a 1998 FRreeper who was busted. It was obvious that she just cringed when a single derogatory word was said about Barry. She used her sign up date as a shield to blast anyone who dared to doubt her. However, a little investigation of her past posts showed that in 2004 when Barry spoke at the DNC convention, she drank the Koolaid. Her past posts busted her when all of her Soetoro fawning posts were exposed.

Diogeneslamp, with all due respect, is wrong and he befriends known trolls which is one of the reasons he is not trusted by so many freepers...you can tell a lot about a man by his friends.

There is one troll on here that knows he is skating on very thin ice. His best friends have been zotted( they were long time freepers)and he is all alone now, detested by many, suspected by most and it’s sort of fun to watch him squirm. He’s afraid to defend his Messiah right now so he just sort of wanders around, not posting much anymore. :P

Sometimes if you suspect someone is a long time troll, go back to their first days of posting on FR. If other Freepers were calling them a troll for the first few months, they probably were but as time went on, their longevity saved them and they became more savvy as to how to ride it out as a troll on FR.


385 posted on 03/08/2012 9:55:22 AM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I must agree. Harlan’s credibility fell through the floor when he tried to have it both ways with the BC.

After reviewing this morning’s exchanges I can only conclude that he is an Obot. Using typical Obot tactics he shifts about without any discernible principle as he defends Obama by whatever rationalization is necessary at that moment. The end being pursued is not the truth, it is acceptance of Obama.

Once an Obot is exposed don’t waste time with them.


386 posted on 03/08/2012 9:55:56 AM PST by Ray76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
When the judge tells the plaintiffs he would render a default judgement and then says the same thing in his written decision, then it is reasonable to assume they would have gotten a default judgement.
Anything can be written after the fact.

Nobody can be as obtuse as you're pretending to be.
To assume something in a court of law is to be shown a fool.

387 posted on 03/08/2012 9:58:10 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
I have already said several times that Obama has no respect for the law.

You have also shown you have no desire for the truth to come out...you manufacture excuses like a rabbit with diarrhea...

388 posted on 03/08/2012 10:01:07 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; Blado; LucyT; Red Steel; Brown Deer; Candor7; Las Vegas Ron; onyx
And you haven't even broached the subject of retreads.
Plenty of those around as well.
389 posted on 03/08/2012 10:09:26 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Well it’s too late now - perhaps next time.


390 posted on 03/08/2012 10:10:39 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

Shoot! ...they would wound up...
391 posted on 03/08/2012 10:14:37 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Sure there are and FR is no different than any other forum. Banned, suspended, zotted, they all usually want to come back. Thank God some of them don’t know how to do it without being detected. Freepers are pretty darn good at spotting retreads. People tend to use a certain posting styles, certain words, certain phrases, and Freepers are darn good at outing retreads, plus JR can out them by their IP’s.


392 posted on 03/08/2012 10:22:41 AM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Well it’s too late now - perhaps next time.
So are you of the opinion that none of the Georgia cases will move forward to the Supreme Court of that State?
393 posted on 03/08/2012 10:30:34 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

I see that you are still wasting the taxpayer’s money while billing our country as a government contractor at SAIC.


394 posted on 03/08/2012 10:33:41 AM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
People tend to use a certain posting styles, certain words, certain phrases...
Yep. Calling cards, as it were.

...and Freepers are darn good at outing retreads...
Yep. Practice makes perfect.

...plus JR can out them by their IP’s.
Masking IP addresses has gotten rather sophisticated. I wish him luck in that area.

395 posted on 03/08/2012 10:39:31 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

All the case were consolidated and dismissed as a matter of law. The appeals court said that Georgia law and prior precedence does not give the court jurisdiction over the Georgia Democratic party’s selection of candidates for the presidential primary.

The judge also said that even if the laws under which the defendants appealed were applied, because they failed to properly serve Obama in the first place, their appeal would be dismissed.

Looks like Georgia election law is specifically written to severely limit the power of judges to interfere with the political parties. I am sure there is some interesting history there.

Now perhaps once the primary is over and Obama is on the general election ballot they can try again.


396 posted on 03/08/2012 10:40:49 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

Not at work at the moment so don’t worry.


397 posted on 03/08/2012 10:42:24 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
People tend to use a certain posting styles, certain words, certain phrases...
An aside - Certain words and phrases of others can be used in many ways, even as 'recognition in passing' through their usage.
398 posted on 03/08/2012 10:46:37 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
All the case were consolidated and dismissed as a matter of law.
Is that how you read it?

@Farrar-Welden-Powell-Swensson v Obama, Order Granting Respondent Barack Obama's Motion(s) to Dismiss, Fulton County Superior Court, 3-2-2012

Do you agree with that decision?

I'll wait and see what happens myself instead of trying to predict the future.

399 posted on 03/08/2012 10:50:58 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
I must agree. Harlan’s credibility fell through the floor when he tried to have it both ways with the BC.

After reviewing this morning’s exchanges I can only conclude that he is an Obot. Using typical Obot tactics he shifts about without any discernible principle as he defends Obama by whatever rationalization is necessary at that moment. The end being pursued is not the truth, it is acceptance of Obama.

Once an Obot is exposed don’t waste time with them.

I have mostly stopped paying attention to him.

400 posted on 03/08/2012 11:05:01 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 551-563 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson