Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EveningStar

I don’t believe so, but either way, it was uncalled for. If she had wanted to avoid the topic, she could have done so politely by just saying that she hadn’t studied the issue, so couldn’t really comment on it. But she didn’t do that. She chose instead to insult those of us who think the POTUS should be required to follow the eligibility requirements of the constitution. And this coming from a lawyer who claims to be a conservative.


22 posted on 08/12/2009 4:19:28 PM PDT by webschooner (First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win -- Mahatma Gandhi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: webschooner
To spare your sensitivities a professional opinion stater shouldn't state her opinion on a subject?

Maybe she DID research the topic and found the birther case lacking in both merit and legal reasoning.

She is a lawyer, and after reading her books and hearing her talk off the cuff, a conservative.

33 posted on 08/12/2009 4:53:44 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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