Replies

I find your conclusion suspect in that according to your statement you did not bother to look at much of anything in the entire article except the one item that would support your post.

I don't have time to check everything, nor do I have time to read everything. That's why when I see the very first claim in an article to be wrong, I generally don't bother with the rest of the article.

And no, the section of the rules you quote doesn't support the article's first claim, either.

. "I don't have time to check everything, nor do I have time to read everything."

And from your FR Homepage...

" Recently I've become somewhat obcessed with debunking birthers."

Looking at your posts it appears that you might think of finding some other interests here. You seem to be stuck in the "not born in HI" argument which is not the issue. That is old news. But your last 100 or so posts seem to be "birther" issue only. You are right, it looks obsessive.

FYI, the indicated statue from HRS 338-18(a) does exactly what the author indicates. That is why HI made it law.

And try hopping on a different thread now and then. Looks like you could use some fresh air.

.