Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Aranince, Dec 4, 2008.
To paraphrase John Cole... it's amazing that conservatives think that the Clintons are bloodthirsty enough to have had Vince Foster killed, but to wussy to use this issue against Obama in the primary...
Wow, people are still banging on about this. Pretty sad.
Very sad indeed.
I'd love to see how people would react if Nicole Kidman ran for President.
Aranince, this is really getting old...
Aranince I admire your persistence. If Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, then were was he born? Kenya then flown to Hawaii as an infant?
Frankly I want Obama to be president, otherwise we'd have to deal with Biden.
Taking any bets on when this thread will be closed? Under three hours?
On what basis should it be closed? Just because it upsets forum participants? I've seen far worse alleged by liberal (anti-bush)posters without any hard evidence. I guess conservatives should keep their heads down out of fear of being censored or, worse, banned.
It's the same old garbage.
Nope, its just that there are like 5 different threads on this subject started by Aranince and every one of them ends in disaster. There are never any fact based discussions. The topic is thrown out and never supported or discussed in a constructive manner. I like to think that its because the story has absolutely zero legitimate standings, but that could be just me.
Do people really think that in this day and age of politics where politicians dig up as much dirt as possible that something this huge would go unnoticed? The simple answer is "No."
It wouldn't be so bad, if only the "documentation" on the supporting websites were written at anything above a 5th grade level. I mean, please! I love a good argument, but... Try to use logic. If you can't do that, at least try to state your case clearly. If you can't do that, at least try, just a little, to make your paperwork legible.
If the site you reference makes a point, it is completely lost in the poor formatting, structure, and grammar. It just isn't worth the effort to pick the fly poop out of the pepperpot, so to speak.
Oh christ! This has been shot down a million times! Can this please be closed?
Are you saying this exact information has been posted before? Same could be said about same old anti-bush crap which has been spewed over and over again. I mean, he gets blamed for everything, as if he had full control over everyhing that happens. Like war in Iraq--forget that this was supported by almost all in congress.
McCain was born in Panama but you wingnuts don't seem to have a problem with that, do you?
That is a legitimate birth. He was born on a Military base. All military installments are considered American soil.
Like Blair, he obtained support for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by lying about the evidence.
Logical fallacy: "Moving the goalposts". Subject is not Bush this time, not is the subject Iraq. Subject is proof of Obama's foreign birth.
Not all US bases are American soil. Simply saying it is so does not change the facts.
True. He was, and it is. That's why McCain's place of birth was never a serious point of contention. It was asked, answered, then dropped.
Many born in panama have dual citizenship at birth. My wife was born there and is a legal naturalized citizen who could run for prez ( god help us all if she did).
In depth? You appear to have just posted a link without any discussion at all.
Nope. The discussion shifted to the topic of post censoring and my comments were addressing that.
Indepth as in, they have more research other than "Obama doesn't have proof."
Ah. Then forgive me. It isn't that you could not stick to the main point, it's just that you chose to change the subject. Gotcha.
Actually, the discussion didn't shift at all. There it is, glaring at you. Please provide proof that Obama is foreign born. You cannot, of course, as all evidence has been locked away by the great conspiracy of the day/hour/minute/second.
So, you are saying you can prove a negative?
If you post a link with no discussion are we meant to think that you support the article and believe every single word written in it 100%? Are you against it? You agree with some of it but not all of it?
They don't have "research". For starters: You cannot ring a hospital and get access to someone's private records. It is a breach of privacy and is utterly illegal for a hospital to release this information. They will not even tell you if the person was there or was treated there. The article is full of it - plain and simple. Do you think I could ring up the hospitals out of the blue and get access to your medical records?