America's been duped!

AW, what`s a little friendly "fact slappin` between political rivals ? No one was injured in the spewwin` of this thread (unless the TRUTH fell on them with the weight of a piano dropped from the 3rd floor...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowellhturner

AW, what`s a little friendly "fact slappin` between political rivals ? No one was injured in the spewwin` of this thread (unless the TRUTH fell on them with the weight of a piano dropped from the 3rd floor...)

---

Here ya go, Lowell......nonono

the truth - YouTube

To be announced soon, new definition of " Family friendly"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane Pole

The world is overrun with "controllers".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathb4disco

How many times have you told us that it was "Karl Rove and the Republicans" who helped Obama beat Hillary?

Don't make me dig up the quotes. :biggrin

---

No need too dig up anything. I have said it and it is true. What I am saying is that the Dems didn't need to dig anything up on the current contenders for the Presidency. The Republican candidates are doing it to each other all by themselves. :yikes:bash EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no1son

Until Arpaio is cleared of charges of massive abuse of power and hundreds of cases of inadequate investigations, he has no validity as any kind of source. I am baffled that otherwise honest people would jump at the opportunity to believe anything of any kind from any source to justify the intense hatred so many of them have of Barack Obama.

Be aware that any image or video on the Internet can be easily faked. None of them are dependable evidence of anything. Evidence of photoshopping can be easily produced and introduced at any point including after initial publication. Arpaio as a source is unreliable on his past history alone.

The real question comes down to who is willing to be duped by which dubious sources.

---

As I said before (what better way to move the focus of the charges against yourself, onto someone else). Some low lifes will believe anything that anyone says if it is about President Obama. The only thing I am disappointed about is that his Secret Service detail didn't take the idiot Gov of Az down hard when she stuck her finger up and the President. EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papadave

Makes no difference whether Joe is correct or reliable. The real point is whether the accusation that Obama is not legally eligible to be POTUS can be proven(as laid out in Art. II of the Constitution). So far the evidence isn't adequate enough for the opposing party to make a case of it. I don't need to have faith in the word of the President or the Democratic Party, it's enough to have faith that the Republican Party would make a case of it IF there was a case to be made(unless for some reason they really don't want a Republican president in office at this time). I do have that faith, just as I have faith that the Blue team would dig just as hard if the shoe were on the other foot. My faith in the nastiness of politics comes from paying attention for the past 40 years.

I personally believe that if neither the Hillary camp or the McCain camp could find enough to make a legitimate case of it then there isn't enough evidence to make a legal argument at all. IF the opposing factors in the last election missed something that could be brought before the legal system, rest assured that there will be enough resources brought to bare in the coming election to reveal it. I'm not arguing about whether he really is "a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States", just about whether it can be proven that he isn't. So far the answer is no it can't. A lot of people have spent the last 4+ years and $$$$$$$ trying to do so with very little to show for it. To date the "birther" issue is in the same category as the accusations that GW Bush was AWOL from the NG or that his daddy helped him out of cocaine charges. Either (or both) of the latter may be true, and many who despised GW believe they are true, but without proof that can stand the legal test it is no more than rumor or slander.

As to the accusations that Obama is really a Muslim, legally it is irrelevant. Art. VI of our Constitution states He can be a Catholic, a Mormon, a Satanist or even an atheist and is eligible for office. It does effect whether people vote for a candidate, but not whether he or she can be legally voted for or whether they have a Constitutional right to hold office.

It is ironic that so many people use a Constitutional argument to say Obama is not eligible for office very closely followed by such an anti-Constitutional argument of his religion. If it were truly a concern for constitutional legality then the argument of religion would not be made. If it were simply a matter of religion then it would be out of character to include constitutional arguments(since the Constitution so explicitly prohibits religious tests).

The really puzzling thing is why, with so much going on in the country, with the hordes of controversial policies that have been put in place over the past 3 1/2 years, with the economy in such bad shape, unemployment rates so high, energy costs going up, average salaries stagnant or going down, why is this unprovable argument so danged important? Seems to me that there is plenty enough PROVEN OBVIOUS fact to attack the Obama administration on without going off tilting windmills.(Don Quixote was an entertaining character, but he isn't well respected for his wisdom)

Addressing the topic of the thread - "America's been duped!" - you betcha! Couldn't agree more. If we vote for ANY politician because we believe that they will put the interests of their constituents, community & this country ahead of their own personal interests we're being duped!

---

Very well stated. EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no1son

Phantom,

It would be about time or at least get this mess kicked into Way Off Topic. I am amazed that the moderators let this run in public as long as it has.

---

No reason to kick it into WOT. No rules have been broken (to badly anyway). As long as it stays civil no harm no foul. Very interesting so far. EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eager Beaver

As I said before (what better way to move the focus of the charges against yourself, onto someone else). Some low lifes will believe anything that anyone says if it is about President Obama. The only thing I am disappointed about is that his Secret Service detail didn't take the idiot Gov of Az down hard when she stuck her finger up and the President. EB

---

Who was confrontational? The blamer in cheif of course. He spoke with disrespect first. I saw the encounter live on tv. Secret Service don't kill folks for exercizing their right of free speech. He ain't king yet you jester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don G

Here ya go, Lowell......nonono

the truth - YouTube

---

Very good Don! :yikes EB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cane Pole

Who was confrontational? The blamer in cheif of course. He spoke with disrespect first. I saw the encounter live on tv. Secret Service don't kill folks for exercizing their right of free speech. He ain't king yet you jester.

---

I disagree that he was the one that was confrontational. She was caught lying thru her teeth. She wanted to make a big showing for the idiots of her State. EB