Obama v. The Birthers

[TuNnL]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Hmmm... a new wrinkle in this controversy:

Anti-‘birther’ bill moves forward

By B.J. Reyes

POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Apr 21, 2010

A proposal aimed at stopping repeated requests for information from so-called "birthers" might also shut out legitimate information requests by the public, says a University of Hawaii professor opposed to the measure.

I have to agree with Professor Kato on this one. As much as I think the “birthers” are nuisance with their frivolous inquiries, we must protect at all costs our citizenry’s right to question government as needed. This bill improperly infringes on that.

[Bobinator]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Yep - he ignored the question, as predicted.

I've been away for a few days. I'm not a coward like you are. At least I can support my position with literature and common sense. I apply the same standards to all politicians, regardless of party affiliation, unlike many here.

The New World Order will have it's way regardless of whether Obama is in office. Getting Obama out of office won't stop the destruction, but it will at least slow it down. And besides, there are more influential people taking action in my stead, and that of millions of Americans.

My concern is for people like you who are completely in the dark about such matters, and are led like sheep to the slaughter, oblivious to what's really going on. People like Obama are empowered by the ignorant masses who will themselves to be blind, so long as they get their suv's, easy money and cozy lifestyle. This is like Babylon and Rome all over again. History indeed repeats itself.

Now, let's see you answer one of the many questions I posted on this thread.

[Bobinator]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Hmmm... a new wrinkle in this controversy:



I have to agree with Professor Kato on this one. As much as I think the “birthers” are nuisance with their frivolous inquiries, we must protect at all costs our citizenry’s right to question government as needed. This bill improperly infringes on that.

Knowing the truth about our President is hardly frivolous. It's pure common sense. Is it frivolous for a country to ask for your passport before you enter?

[tutusue]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

[...]
My concern is for people like you who are completely in the dark about such matters, and are led like sheep to the slaughter, oblivious to what's really going on. [...]

Oh, Bob. Do you understand that there are HTers who feel exactly the same about you and your views? You are in a no-win situation here. The "other side" feels just as strongly about their views as you do about yours. Nuthin' wrong with that except you keep coming in here and beating a dead horse. You're not making any converts. You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. This is America, after all. But do you really think you can come back to this thread time and time again and make people believe you? I think not. Let go and preach to a forum of like minds.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

I've been away for a few days.

Yet you responded to my post WITHOUT addressing my question - just as you did the last time, so you were here and you saw it - but as usual, avoided it.

Now, let's see you answer one of the many questions I posted on this thread.

You first; still waiting (though not really, because I know you will never have an answer.)

Knowing the truth about our President is hardly frivolous.

So, as I asked before: why don't YOU file a lawsuit? Put up or ... well, you know.

[matapule]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

If it's good once, it's good twice.

[surlygirly]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

I think I just fell in love. Too bad I'm already married, Tatt!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Now, let's see you answer one of the many questions I posted on this thread.

How about you answer the ONE question that's been posted to you in this thread? Like - we asked first, so you answer first?

Sorry we know better.

What? You think no one's paying attention?
You think if you don't answer you can keep this thread going forever?
Or, as I suspect, if you do answer it, and answer it honestly, your whole conspiritorial house of playing cards will crumble to a scrap heap?

Nixon: "I am NOT a liar!"
Clinton: "I never had sex with that woman!"
Bobinator: "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, so what's YOUR answer?"

We get more truth and honesty from Osama bin Laden than we do from Bobinator.

[TATTRAT]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

I think I just fell in love. Too bad I'm already married, Tatt!

Will you be my E-wife?

[surlygirly]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Will you be my E-wife?

Of course! Just, you know...gotta see your birth certificate first.

[anapuni808]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

SG: make sure he shows you the long form one

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

SG: make sure he shows you the long form one

But get the State Department of Health to check it out first.

[surlygirly]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

SG: make sure he shows you the long form one

Awww. Now I'll never get married.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

Hey let's not make fun of the Geek Meet!!! Not all of them are republicans.

[Random]

Re: Obama v. The Birthers

SG: make sure he shows you the long form one

Is that letter-size (about 8.5 inches long) or legal (15 inches)?