Posted on 04/10/2010 10:31:17 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Wake up and smell the coffee. Orly isn’t on your side.
It seems to me Vinson was writing tongue-in-cheek, if you read it carefully. :) After all, when Orly filed 154 pages of attachments, none of which had anything remotely to do with health care, to try to horn in on a suit that's exclusively about HCR, could he actually take her seriously?
2) The quo warranto judge will rush his decision up to chop out the underlying claim.
Judge Lamberth hasn't said a word as yet. The clerks have just been patiently documenting Orly's endless submissions. In this one, by the way, she also threatens to prosecute the US Attorneys for fraud because they dared to file motions to dismiss (which is their job). She sure has a way of impressing judges with her unique interpretation of the law.
If it weren't for Orly Obama’s eligibility wouldn't have received the Internet publicity that it has.
All it takes is one judge and the game is over for Obama.
Shameless vanity. I posted this last nite on another thread for all those unjustly accused of being trolls:
On the issues of trolls, I am somewhat sensitive, because I feel I have been unjustly accused of a crime that I didnt commit. I am looking around for a screenwriter to do a television series, like BRANDED, or maybe THE FUGITIVE. I kind of like BRANDED, because the theme music is kewler.
Branded, scorned as a OBOT Mole- doo doo doo dooooo.
What do you do when youre branded?
And they call you a TROLL....
So far, no one is interested.
However, I have written a poem, which should apply to those unjustly accused of being Trolls, whoever and wherever they might be:
The Troll Poem
by parsifal
If you dont agree with ME,
You surely are a TROLL, you see.
It all works out so LOGICKLY,
YOU are a Troll, if WE dont agree.
And if you disagree with ME,
Ill tell the MODS, just wait and see!
Thats how Ill WIN my victory.
By TANTRUMS from my nursery.
Ill save the MENTAL energy
Defending MY absurdity,
From ANY who might disagree
By crying TROLL quite frequently.
I have no sense of DECENCY.
Its all about my VANITY.
The Center of the Universe is ME!
And youre a TROLL if you dont agree!
Optional T.S.Eliot type ending, for high class web sites:
This is how the argument ends...
This is how the argument ends...
This is how the argument ends...
Not with a bang. . .but a Simper.
I have to say that we're getting to the point where Orly is not even funny anymore.
It's like watching seventeen straight hours of Monty Python.
Eventually you just can't believe anyone could do this.
I think you are going down a road that some other conservatives have traveled. That is, “Orly may be nutz, and the issue ridiculous, BUT if it throws mud on Obama, so be it.” For all I know, you may be right. But there are dangers.
First, a lie is a lie is a lie. Doesn’t matter who says it, if it isn’t true, then it is morally wrong. Plus, lies and mis-truths have a way of backfiring on people.
Second, and forgetting for now the moral implications and focusing only on cynical political considerations: is the mudslinging really having any impact on voters who will likely vote for Obama in the future? My instinct tells me the only people who believe this are people who didn’t vote for Obama in the first place. So, there is no gain.
But the analysis should not stop there. In the last election most independents went for Obama as I recall. That group of voters is less partisan. They can swing to Obama, they can swing to Palin, for example. They are the unknown.
The question is, how does the mudslinging affect them? It seems Obama and his cohorts are quite prepared to smear conservatives, the Tea Party, the GOP, Palin, etc. with the “crazy” brush. So, for no net gain, the mudslinging may actually turn into a net loss. That is the fear expressed by most serious conservative pundits, including Beck and Coulter, and others.
As for me, I just think it is wrong to lie about stuff. Back in the Reagan days, I was a staunch Republican, and might be again if they ever run off the durn economic Libertarian goobers. I remember how Saint Teddy Kennedy and the foul Democrats used to trash Reagan and accuse him of trying to destroy the country, and being a nazi, and hater and all that crap. I thought it was wrong then.
I never had a problem with people disagreeing with his policies, but the hateful crap seemed wrong to me. Reagan was our President, like him or not, and any implication that he wasn’t doing what he thought was right, whether you agreed with him or not, seemed out of place. It still seems wrong to me.
So, if you choose the “mudslinging is fine if it hurts the other side” road, just be prepared for a potential backfire.
parsy
I think you’re right. That remark about other issues, and the credibility of the BC did seem to have the air of snark about it.
But, she had nothing to lose. The quo warranto was going down regardless of whether she tried to consolidate or not. The really embarrassing thing would have been if one or more of the AG’s had moved in opposition to her Motion. That would have looked bad in her political campaign. This way, she can blame the “corrupt” legal system.
parsy
Hey there.
Are you off of double secret probation?
Well. I do hope that you are not holding your breath waiting.
No. I don’t think this thread really counts as an eligibility type thread. It is more about Orly. And, I am staying away from fully expressing my opinion about the merits. However, the little sissies on the other thread are coming to life. Who knows.
parsy, who thinks Orly will be dismissed in DC pretty quickly now
We're a hard-core cadre of Obots who have been around for anywhere from a few years to a decade just waiting for our cells to be activated.
Good things you joined a few weeks ago to point this out.
Parsy’s invited to share his thoughts on any article I post.
He can’t be accused of trolling if he and the freeper who posted the article are in agreement, can he?
Tex
I mean, jeeze...
Go Orly go!
Are you saying that Barry’s Presidency is a lunacy?
I agree. Plus, I am not really letting loose on the other guys the way I want to.
parsy, the well behaved
Your attorney is an incompetent clown.
Rethink your strategy.
SHut up, man! You aren't supposed to tell them that!
Sorry.
It just slipped out.
I guess that’s why I never get promoted.
Well, Cpt. Barnett, please accept my sincerest thanks for your service to our beloved nation. Your sacrifice is appreciated and held in highest regard.
Now, I’ll address the points you raised.
First, you mistakenly assume that any freeper who disagrees with the unconscionable tactics of Orly Taitz is automatically an Obot. You’re very wrong. Birthers use “respect for Orly” as a conservative litmus test on FR. But, last I checked, “respect for Orly Taitz” wasn’t listed in the Republican Party platform as a value conservatives uphold and support. Neither do I see it listed in Jim Robinson’s mission statement for FR.
I am a freedom-loving, law-abiding conservative. I despise Barack Hussien Obama and his Chicago Thugs. I’m terrified that they’ll damage our beloved nation more than that from which we will be able to recover. I am not an Obot and I am not a troll. Most of the other freepers who feel the same way about Orly as I do are also conservatives and not trolls or Obots.
Secondly, you also mistakenly assume that I don’t find the Constitution worthy of defending. You couldn’t be further from the truth. As the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution must be defended - from Obama and Orly!
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. would have the Constitution twisted and the rules that govern our justice system bent to achieve her goal of having Obama removed from office. She hasn’t presented a shred of credible evidence that Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove his/her case. Yet Orly would have the defendant prove to the plaintiff that he is a natural born citizen.
In case Orly didn’t tell you, the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.” So we must look elsewhere for that definition and attempt to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers. The fact is we don’t know whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen because the SCOTUS has not ruled on his specific birth circumstances. We can make arguments for and against his NBC status. But until we can bring a proper case to the SCOTUS, we’ve got nada.
Ask yourself this question: Are you willing to accept a ruling by the SCOTUS that Obama is a natural born citizen? If you’re unwilling, then it’s not the Constiution you want to see upheld but rather your (and Orly’s and every other birther’s) interpretation of it.
In my experience with birthers, they say they want the Constitution upheld, but in truth, what they really want is their own definitions of “natural born citizen” to be upheld as valid. And no proof Obama provided to that end would be acceptable to birthers. If he provided the long-form BC tomorrow, they’d claim he had two plus years to produce a perfect forgery. They already accuse the Hawaii DoH officials of conspiracy and certain Honorable Federal Judges of being corrupt or “gotten to.” So no legal statements from the Hawaii government will suffice and neither will any judicial ruling that is contrary to the goal of removing Obama. What evidence will satisfy the birthers? Obama’s removal from office is the only acceptable outcome for birthers.
Let’s be honest, it’s not about the Constitution because natural born citizen is not defined there. It’s about removing Obama from office. And Orly is willing to use anyone who suits her purpose and any method that brings about the end goal.
Orly Taitz is no patriot.
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.