Skip to comments.
Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, others to leave a Legacy of COWARDICE
VANITY
Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 501-507 next last
To: Harlan1196
Now that is just what I mean. You're so much fun when you're flustered!
361
posted on
02/20/2012 8:18:55 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Did you actually look at your link? The ENTIRE third clause was replaced. Gone completely.
To: philman_36
Yes - the entire THIRD CLAUSE was superseded - no longer valid.
The replacement words are found in the 12 amendment. They were not pasted into the the section.
Exactly what I said in the first place.
To: philman_36
This is what Mario Apuzzo, Esquire has to say on the matter
“There is a dispute, among courts and commentators, as to
whether the provision known as the Natural Born Citizen clause should be cited as clause 4 or clause 5 of Article II, § 1 of the Constitution. Compare Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63,65 (D.N.H. 2008) (citing the provision as clause 4), Rhodes v.MacDonald, No. 4:09-CV-106, 2009 WL 2997605, at *1 n.1 (M.D.Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (same), and Gerard N. Magliocca,Constitutional False Positives and the Populist Movement, 81NOTRE DAME L. REV. 821, 874 (2006) (same)”
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf
Do you trust Mario Apuzzo, Esquire?
To: Harlan1196
Come on man, can't you take a joke? It says right there "AMENDMENT XII".
You simply
can't take a joke.
Oh, BTW, you forgot this part...
In any event, the parties agree as to the substance of the Natural Born Citizen clause, and we use the same citation as we used in Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 237 n.1 (3d Cir. 2009).
You're back to your beer drinking fantasy with Berg.
I apologize for saying you made an "outright lie", you made a little white lie, IMO, as the substance of the clause still exists.
Do you trust Mario Apuzzo, Esquire?
Yeah, I do. It's you I don't trust.
365
posted on
02/20/2012 8:47:58 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: philman_36
We were not arguing the substance of the clause. We were arguing whether it was proper for the Ankeny judge to refer to it as Clause 4 vice 5.
Cut the revisionist nonsense.
To: Harlan1196
We were arguing whether it was proper for the Ankeny judge to refer to it as Clause 4 vice 5.And it appears we still are. Even your footnote says it isn't resolved.
So anyway, why did you leave off that part of the footnote?
367
posted on
02/20/2012 9:05:46 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
Do you trust Mario Apuzzo, Esquire?One more thing...Why did you imply that Mario Apuzzo made that statement when it's clearly SLOVITER who made it?
368
posted on
02/20/2012 9:09:20 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Harlan1196
Do you, by chance, play chess?
And if you do, do you think several moves in advance or do you wait for your opponent to make a move before you start thinking about your next move?
369
posted on
02/20/2012 9:25:07 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: chrisnj; Chance Hart
“The excuses for these talking heads is always - they will be marginalized and cant talk about other pressing issues.
They must ssee that they have the power if they UNITE against the lamestream media.
If all of them, including the GOP candidates, publicly challenge soetoro/obamas elig., start a national dialogue, do some digging, they will get the peoples support and the dam will crack.
But not one of them dares to get started. They let the left frighten them into submission.”
I, too, am constantly frosted over the silence and/or ridicule directed at us by those who purport to be our “conservative voices”. Rush has on occasion hinted in a vague way that he’s on our side - but it’s been very veiled.
Considering the logic in our argument, there is NO logic in the fact that virtually none of them will broach the subject. That mass, or united, response of theirs makes no sense. Simple logic says some of them - even just one of them - would have out of their own curiosity wondered out loud about this eligibility debate.
Their united adversity is simply not the normal reaction to come people whose occupations are to raise questions.
Their united silence indicates they have reason-in-common to refuse to address it. There’s one thing all in the broadcast business have in common, from every single on-air employee of Fox News, to Rush/Levin/Ingraham, which is that each and every day they tiptoe through a minefield which operates at the whim of Obama: the FCC. The FCC is Obie’s nuclear option: be on his side of the “birther issue”, or your broadcast license will not be renewed.
Does Obama have the constitutional authority to pull FCC licenses? I really don’t know. Would not having that authority restrain him? We all know the answer to that one: absolutely not.
Example of broadcaster’s mind-set: a few weeks ago Joseph Farrah was one of the guests on Hannity’s tv show. When Farrah quite innocuously included “eligibility” among things about Obama that should be looked into, the reaction on Hannity’s face was of near-panic - he very briefly muttered something, stammering - and they immediately went to break.
Seems pretty obvious that Obama’s [in]eligibility is something they are not ALLOWED to mention.
370
posted on
02/20/2012 9:25:30 PM PST
by
GGMac
((lesson learned re Obie: parse every sentence, every word, every gesture, every photo))
To: Harlan1196
This is what Mario Apuzzo, Esquire has to say on the matterCome to think of it, that is a flat out lie as it was SLOVITER himself who made the statement and it's in the second sentence of "OPINION OF THE COURT" right under "SLOVITER, Circuit Judge."
371
posted on
02/20/2012 9:50:07 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: mlo
A much better illustration, IMO.
372
posted on
02/20/2012 9:56:50 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Ronin
The telling point for me is and always been that every one of the court challenges gets squished before anything actually gets anywhere.
I've progressed from being dismayed by this birther nonsense, to being absolutely dumbstruck by it, and finally on to being amused by it. It's a better feeling than the dismay.
I mean, here you go citing the fact that this birther issue falls on its face every single time in court as evidence that it has merit.
Really. You actually just claimed that you're right because you have a 100% track record of getting laughed out of court.
Just hypothetically, what do you think the track record would look like if you were wrong? Is there some particular percentage of judges laughing you out of court that you wouldn't take as an indication that birtherism is about to revolutionize American history? 0% and 100% mean you're correct, so surely there's a magic number in between, right?
373
posted on
02/20/2012 10:01:29 PM PST
by
aNYCguy
To: GGMac
...a few weeks ago Joseph Farrah was one of the guests on Hannitys tv show. When Farrah quite innocuously included eligibility among things about Obama that should be looked into, the reaction on Hannitys face was of near-panic - he very briefly muttered something, stammering - and they immediately went to break.Since I don't watch Fox any longer and I really hadn't heard of this interview I decided to go look at it.
You simply can't view that video any longer.
Even WND's video is down. @
Farah on Fox TV: Rubio not a natural-born citizenSame with @
Farah: Rubio Ineligible To Be Vice President, Not A Natural-Born CitizenSame with...well, you get the picture.
374
posted on
02/20/2012 10:14:19 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: GGMac
Ah, I got it now. Settings conflict. Trying to block all these trackers and such.
375
posted on
02/20/2012 10:32:35 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: GGMac
I agree GGMac - Someone with an audience needs to grab a dose of Courage and step out as the leader on this issue. Sadly, I fear that most of them will stay hunkered down and frightened as America falls deeper into the abyss. Shame that none have yet showed the grit to face the Almighty Alinsky Mob!
To: Yooperman
there is NOTHING they can do....they are trying to keep on the airwaves and if we didn't have them, we would have NOTHING....
what we really need is a whole bunch of strong high charactered men to step up and run for every office in America, starting with the school board, the courts, the city, county and state legislatures and on up...
we need a mass of these guys....
but alas, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is the most important thing to many American men...
you want an enemy?... a person to blame.....America, look in the mirror....
stop blaming some radio heads...
377
posted on
02/20/2012 10:47:42 PM PST
by
cherry
To: cherry
there is NOTHING they can do...
BS! One thing they can do is not disparage those who happen to take this issue seriously. Let them keep their damn jobs and don't put down those who are doing what they refuse to do.
378
posted on
02/20/2012 11:14:51 PM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: CynicalBear
“And who do you think needs to hold their feet to the fire so they dont cave on issues? “
It’s not their job to do your thinking for you.
It’s their job to have successful radio shows with a following.
It’s their job to present the facts, and it’s YOUR job to make up your own mind.
If Rush were to endorse someone today, and trash the other candidates, what do you think he would be able to accomplish AFTER the primaries? NADA, if his endorsed candidate were to lose.
They are, all, between a rock and a hard place. Cut them some slack.
379
posted on
02/21/2012 12:58:29 AM PST
by
dixiechick2000
(This hobbit is looking for her pitchfork...God help the GOP if I find it.)
To: aNYCguy; Ronin
Actually, my understanding is that this is the first trio of cases that have actually gotten to be "heard". Prior to this, every single one has been dismissed on procedural grounds or due to "lack of standing". As if every voter shouldn't have standing in a court of law to demand irrefutable demonstration of the legal bona fides of a candidate aspiring to the presidential levers of power.
Puhleeze.
380
posted on
02/21/2012 3:38:36 AM PST
by
Flotsam_Jetsome
(If not you, who? If not now, when?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360, 361-380, 381-400 ... 501-507 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson