Stunner !! U.S. Supreme Court To Review Obama's Eligibility Fot President
Fred Brown
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern
Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
ProudBirther
stone cold stunner!
Lookout
wrote:
WorldNetDaily?
AHHAHAHAAHHA You stupid fuck
Lookout
wrote:
And NOT happening dumbass
JohnJohnsn
>
> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>
>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
>> Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look
>
> WorldNetDaily?
> AHHAHAHAAHHA You stupid fuck
You didn't follow the link and actually read the SCOTUS docket, did
you?
JohnJohnsn
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2011 2:22 PM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
>>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>
>
>>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
>>> Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i>
>
>> stone cold stunner!
>
> And NOT happening dumbass
You didn't follow the link and actually read the SCOTUS docket, did
you, dumbass?
deepdudu
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
what a bunch of bullshit. "Barry Soetoro". HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA
How ironic you should be calling someone else a dumbass.
If nothing else, you nutjobs are entertaining.
Buster Norris
wrote:
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
Lookout
wrote:
You still don't get it, dumbass because you don't know what the fuck
you are talking about.
The case is NOT going before the Supreme Court. A PETETION has been
submitted to be reviewed IN CONFERENCE. That's all. Nothing more. The
court is NOT scheduled to hear the case.
Your problem is you can't comprehend the words you are reading. You're
just to fucking stupid.\
Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter.
Buster Norris
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:08:08 -0500, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:30:50 -0600, Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:43:25 -0500, ProudBirther <o...@bc.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2/18/2011 2:22 PM, Fred Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>>>>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i>
>>>>> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
>>>>
>>>>stone cold stunner!
>>>
>>>And NOT happening dumbass
>>
>>LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
>>Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
>>
>>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
>
>You still don't get it, dumbass because you don't know what the fuck
>you are talking about.
YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>The case is NOT going before the Supreme Court.
The CLAIM was "Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court"
YOU said "And NOT happening"
You LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>The court is NOT scheduled to hear the case.
Nobody made that claim, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Your problem is
YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter.
I enjoyed pissing on your face, in public...............
JohnJohnsn
DimocRat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02), posting as `Deep Dudu' wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:18:36 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 10:30 am, Lookout <mrLooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:43:25 -0500, ProudBirther <o...@bc.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On 2/18/2011 2:22 PM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
>>>>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
>>>>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>>>>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
>>>>> Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look
>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
>
>>>> stone cold stunner!
>
>>> And NOT happening dumbass
>
>> You didn't follow the link and actually read the SCOTUS docket, did
>> you, dumbass?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
>
> what a bunch of bullshit. "Barry Soetoro". HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAA
Hollister v. Soetoro
On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory
S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama
(referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his
enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school).
--<http://tinyurl.com/Soetoro-is-Obama>
--<http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/soetoro2.jpg>
--<http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/soetoro1.jpg>
You have a problem with his BHO-II's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, naming
his own stepson?
Take it up with him, and the Indonesian school system,, then.
> How ironic you should be calling someone else a dumbass.
So, dumbass; this is your way of acknowledging that you didn't read
the SCOTUS docket either.
Fine: stay as stupid as you have already proven yourself to be.
deepdudu
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA
Fuck me, you wingers are such a hoot !
JohnJohnsn
DimocRat LOSER (est. 2010-11-02) Abderian Simpleton, posting as `Deep
Dudu' wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:58:24 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
You Left-Wing COLB Cultist Birthers are so predictable: zero response
to the _facts_; just more Abderian Laughter.
Get back to us after the March 4th Supreme Court of the United States
(SCotUS) rehearing conference and we'll see who has the last laugh.
>> You have a problem with his BHO-II's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, naming
>> his own stepson?
>
>> Take it up with him, and the Indonesian school system,, then.
>
>>> How ironic you should be calling someone else a dumbass.
>
>> So, dumbass; this is your way of acknowledging that you didn't read
>> the SCOTUS docket either.
>
>> Fine: stay as stupid as you have already proven yourself to be.
>
>>> If nothing else, you nutjobs are entertaining.
>
>>>> <http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/021711supremes.jpg>
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry
"Barack Obama put the Democrats in the position of forever
redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great one."
— Shelby Steele, Wall Street Journal, 10/28/2010
"There are three branches of government: House, Senate, and the
President"
— Charles "Chuckie, the Cereal Killer" Schumer, 30 Jan 2011
JohnJohnsn
.
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:16:41 -0600, Lookout <mrLooko...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 01:08:08 -0500, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:43:25 -0500, ProudBirther <o...@bc.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> On 2/18/2011 2:22 PM, Fred Brown wrote:
>
>>>>>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>>>>>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
>
>>>>> stone cold stunner!
>
>>>> And NOT happening dumbass
>
>>> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>> ~~~Date~~~~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
>
>>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
>
>> You still don't get it, dumbass because you don't know what the fuck
>> you are talking about.
>
> YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>> The case is NOT going before the Supreme Court.
>
> The CLAIM was "Supremes to give eligibility case another look
> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court"
>
> YOU said "And NOT happening"
>
> You LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >The court is NOT scheduled to hear the case.
>
> Nobody made that claim, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moreover, just _who_ does Herr Ausblick think sits on the conference
anyway?
Hint: SCotUS justices; that's who.
They have to "confer" on just which ones of them :screwed the pooch"
by violating their own SCotUS Rules by not having a hearing on the
Recusal Motion, and what to do about it now that it's been revealed.
>> Your problem is you can't comprehend the words you are reading.
>> You're just to {GIC/SIC} fucking stupid.
>>
>> Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter
>
> YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>> Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter.
>
> I enjoyed pissing on your face, in public...............
Herr Ausblick enjoys it:
SilentOtto
Go to the WND website?
Fuck no.
That site is so blindingly stupid my CPU commit suicide.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
wrote:
The only people who are "stunned" are you wackadoodle birthers.
Let's bring a dose of reality here.
First, the cite to WorldNutDaily is just more of their usual ravings
about birth certificates and all that other irrelevant shit WND thinks
is important.
Second -- the dumbass Hollister who filed suit made two claims:
1. Obama is not eligible to be president because he's not an American
citizen.
2. The two SCOTUS justices appointed by Obama -- Kagan and Sotomayor
-- should recuse themselves from hearing his suit.
When a case reaches SCOTUS, it is reviewed by the law clerks who
prepare briefs for their respective justices.
The justices then meet in conference and decide if they will hear the
case.
EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE TO OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY HAS BEEN TOSSED OUT IN
CONFERENCE -- SCOTUS HAS REFUSED TO HEAR THIS BULLSHIT.
When this case originally hit SCOTUS, they turned it down.
Now, Hollister has appealed, claiming that the question of Kagan and
Sotomayer was not addressed.
So, SCOTUS has scheduled the case for the 4 March conference:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
-- quote
No. 10-678
Title:
Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v.
Barry Soetoro, et al.
Docketed: November 23, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-5080)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due
December 23, 2010)
Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I,
II, III)
Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al.
to respond filed.
Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.
Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
Washington, DC 20016
johndh...@comcast.net
Party name: Gregory S. Hollister
Attorneys for Respondents:
Marc Erik Elias Perkins Coie, LLP (202)-434-1609
Counsel of Record 700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
mel...@perkinscoie.com
Party name: Barry Soetoro, et al.
-- end quote
4 March is Friday. The results of the 4 March conference will be
published in a Court Order on 7 March:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx
-- quote
The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of
summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a
petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of
orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but
"miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time.
Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their
issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance
or the next day.
-- end quote
And, on 7 March, the birthers will have the shit slapped out of them
again.
How many times does this make???
JohnJohnsn
ROTFLMFAO! ;D
Can't stand the heat of the Right-Wing kitchen, eh?
Well, check out this Left-Wing blog from ABC TV's "The View":
<http://theview.abc.go.com/forum/scotus-takes-another-look-obamas-
eligibility?page=8>
If that's still not good enough, how about the SCotUS itself?
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/
10-678.htm>
Left-Wingers: a bunch of Genuine Lying Liberal Socialist LOSERS! :D
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant;
it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
— William F. Buckley, Jr.
Buster Norris
Can you imagine the medium-size thermonuclear blast of TWO Judges
recusing themselves, the case is heard, and won 5 to 2...............
Obogus has done more to harm America in two years than all Dems
combined in 200 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>>> Your problem is you can't comprehend the words you are reading.
>>> You're just to {GIC/SIC} fucking stupid.
>>>
>>> Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter
>>
>> YOU LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> Now smarten up or you'll end up back in my filter.
>>
>> I enjoyed pissing on your face, in public...............
>
>Herr Ausblick enjoys it:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fred Brown
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
'Member Obama insulting the Supreme Court Justices in public?
Payback time.
RD Sandman
news:4d63d293$0$68320$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>
> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>---------- Posted: February 17, 2011
I doubt that will occur. It takes 4 Justices to grant cert. I doubt that
the conservative group are all birthers.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
History shows that today's bailout will become
tomorrow's entitlement.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131:
How about just curious? How about wanting to put the matter to rest one way
or the other.
it seems to me Obama has his hands full being the BMFWBIC, interfering in
state matters, ignoring the pirates, putting a happy face on muslim
aggression, spending us all into a Weimar like frenzy. he needs to get this
BC thing settled os it's not a distraction.
--
Herman Cain for President!
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
RD Sandman
news:Xns9E948D18D151We...@216.196.97.142:
> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
> news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:4d63d293$0$68320$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown"
>>>> <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>>Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>-- ---------- Posted: February 17, 2011
>>>>>2:23 pm Eastern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case
>>>>><I>another</i> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
>>>>
>>>> The only people who are "stunned" are you wackadoodle birthers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's bring a dose of reality here.
>>>>
>>>> First, the cite to WorldNutDaily is just more of their usual
>>>> ravings about birth certificates and all that other irrelevant shit
>>>> WND thinks is important.
>>>>
>>>> Second -- the dumbass Hollister who filed suit made two claims:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Obama is not eligible to be president because he's not an
>>>> American citizen.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The two SCOTUS justices appointed by Obama -- Kagan and
>>>> Sotomayor -- should recuse themselves from hearing his suit.
>>>>
>>>> When a case reaches SCOTUS, it is reviewed by the law clerks who
>>>> prepare briefs for their respective justices.
>>>>
>>>> The justices then meet in conference and decide if they will hear
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE TO OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY HAS BEEN TOSSED OUT
>>>> IN CONFERENCE -- SCOTUS HAS REFUSED TO HEAR THIS BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>> When this case originally hit SCOTUS, they turned it down.
>>>>
>>>> Now, Hollister has appealed, claiming that the question of Kagan
>>>> and Sotomayer was not addressed.
>>>>
>>>> So, SCOTUS has scheduled the case for the 4 March conference:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678
>>>> .h tm
For most, it isn't.
Gray Ghost
Well then how come he keeps fucking eveything else up? The only thing he
seems to be good at it is keeping the orginal and his school records
hidden. On everything else he's a complete fucking disaster.
Fred Brown
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131...
Actually Obama is probably witholding the records simply because it
serves as a distraction from his true agenda. One of the basic rules of
politics is to distract and obfuscate your opponents.
JohnJohnsn
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131...
>
>> news:4d63d293$0$68320$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>
>>> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com>
>>>> Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due
>>>> December 23, 2010)
>>>> Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I,
>>>> II, III)
>>>> Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al.
>>>> to respond filed.
>>>> Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
>>>> Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
>>>> Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.
>>>> Feb 7 2011 Petition for Rehearing filed.
>>>> Feb 16 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011.
>
>>>> Attorneys for Petitioner:
>>>> John David Hemenway 4816 Rodman Street, NW (202) 244-4819
>>>> Washington, DC 20016
Absolutely!
If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease and the
focus would switch to the Obama ADMINSTRATION totally; and BHO-II does
_not_ want that to happen.
RD Sandman
Not really, he has done some good things. At least they happened on his
watch so he should get the credit for them just like some folks want for
Bush (who also did some good things on his watch) and Clinton or Bush,
the elder.
RD Sandman
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:4d63d293$0$68320$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown"
>>>> <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>>Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>-- ---------- Posted: February 17, 2011
>>>>>2:23 pm Eastern
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case
>>>>><I>another</i> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
>>>>
>>>> The only people who are "stunned" are you wackadoodle birthers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's bring a dose of reality here.
>>>>
>>>> First, the cite to WorldNutDaily is just more of their usual
>>>> ravings about birth certificates and all that other irrelevant shit
>>>> WND thinks is important.
>>>>
>>>> Second -- the dumbass Hollister who filed suit made two claims:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Obama is not eligible to be president because he's not an
>>>> American citizen.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The two SCOTUS justices appointed by Obama -- Kagan and
>>>> Sotomayor -- should recuse themselves from hearing his suit.
>>>>
>>>> When a case reaches SCOTUS, it is reviewed by the law clerks who
>>>> prepare briefs for their respective justices.
>>>>
>>>> The justices then meet in conference and decide if they will hear
>>>> the case.
>>>>
>>>> EVERY SINGLE CHALLENGE TO OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY HAS BEEN TOSSED OUT
>>>> IN CONFERENCE -- SCOTUS HAS REFUSED TO HEAR THIS BULLSHIT.
>>>>
>>>> When this case originally hit SCOTUS, they turned it down.
>>>>
>>>> Now, Hollister has appealed, claiming that the question of Kagan
>>>> and Sotomayer was not addressed.
>>>>
>>>> So, SCOTUS has scheduled the case for the 4 March conference:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678
>>>> .h tm
Then why are all the birthers helping him to do that?
--
RD Sandman
news:43deca7f-b14c-4414...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Or if you guys simply dropped it, the focus would also shift to Obama’s
administration and what is going on there.
--
Gray Ghost
Like what?
> watch so he should get the credit for them just like some folks want for
> Bush (who also did some good things on his watch) and Clinton or Bush,
> the elder.
>
--
RD Sandman
The economy is not completely in the ditch. We are getting out of Iraq.
>> watch so he should get the credit for them just like some folks want
>> for Bush (who also did some good things on his watch) and Clinton or
>> Bush, the elder.
>>
>
>
>
--
Gray Ghost
Really, that's what you're going with? How about if it's wasn't for the big
eared dolt we might actually be in a better place. Happen to noticew gas
and food prices lately? I don't hink government ca actually lower them, but
I do know that mismagement can raise them.
> We are getting out of Iraq.
And you're giving that one to Obama? RD, you are smarter than that.
>>> watch so he should get the credit for them just like some folks want
>>> for Bush (who also did some good things on his watch) and Clinton or
>>> Bush, the elder.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
JohnJohnsn
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:43deca7f-b14c-4414...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Feb 23, 8:02 am, "Fred Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> And, on 7 March, the birthers will have the shit slapped out of
>>>>>> them again.
>
>>>>>> How many times does this make???
>
>>>>> 'Member Obama insulting the Supreme Court Justices in public?
>>>>> Payback time.
>
>>>> I doubt that will occur. It takes 4 Justices to grant cert. I doubt
>
>>> Actually Obama is probably witholding the records simply because it
>>> serves as a distraction from his true agenda. One of the basic rules
>>> of politics is to distract and obfuscate your opponents.
>
>> Absolutely!
>
>> If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
>> Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease and the
>> focus would switch to the Obama ADMINSTRATION totally; and BHO-II
>> does _not_ want that to happen.
>
> Or if you guys simply dropped it, the focus would also shift to Obama s
> administration and what is going on there.
What do you mean "you guys"???
I am saying the computer-generated COLB is sufficient to establish BHO-
II's legitimacy.
My only argument is with those who say that there is nothing to his
refusal to supply what even Left-Winger Chris "My Leg Is Tingling For
Obama" Matthews says BHO-II should release to show there is _nothing_
there that aids the "Kenya-born" crowd's conspiracy theory.
The refusal only supplies "grist for the mill."
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
>
> If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
> Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease
No, it would not. The birthers would simply denounce the certified
copy as a forgery and they would continue their lunatic raving.
Day Brown
in the AL National Guard. And, I'd like to see some of Mrs Obama and her
new baby.
Tankfixer
@y30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, - SilentOtto silen...@hotmail.com
spouted !
> so blindingly stupid my CPU commit suicide.
So what's the downside ?
Fred Brown
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
The same reason a couple of million viewers stay glued to their armchairs
watching Nancy Grace loop the same video tapes night after night.
It's the only entertainment in their dull, boring lives.
JohnJohnsn
Until BHO-II actually releases a certified photostatic copy of his
ORIGINAL, long-form Certificate Of Live Birth your above belief is
merely supposition on your part.
For one thing, release would provide additional information that could
be subjectively verified, thereby aiding in the proof of the
document's validity.
As it is, the "truth deniers" claim that the data provided by the
computer-generated COLB could have been faked when entered into the
computer records of the Hawai'i State Department of Health's Vital
Statistics Section.
Since the information on the ORIGINAL is typed and not computer-
generated, it could not be manipulated as can a computer record.
It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
"hosted" the birth in 1961 (we already know that the obstetrician was
Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
What we do not know at this point is the name of the local registrar
that accepted the original Certificate Of Live Birth from Dr. West,
then submitted it to the HSDOH for recording. He could be queried as
to his knowledge of the birth circumstances.
Moreover, the local registrar will have his own records of the birth
registration to independently back up the records of the HSDOH.
While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
Certificate Of Live Birth may not stop all the decension,, it surely
will not hurt.
It _will_ hurt such Usenet Idiots as the Head Cherleader of the Obama
COLB Cult, Iarnród the Abderian Simpleton, who want everyone to take
the COLB at face value and "STFU", just because they _want_ everyone
to.
JohnJohnsn
>
> On 02/23/2011 06:54 PM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>
>> On Feb 23, 9:42 am, JohnJohnsn<TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
>>> Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease
>
>> No, it would not. The birthers would simply denounce the certified
>> copy as a forgery and they would continue their lunatic raving.
>
> I'd like to see snapshots of GW Bush hanging out with his beer buddies
> in the AL National Guard.
<http://tinyurl.com/GWB-Buddies>
> And, I'd like to see some of Mrs Obama and her new baby.
We take it that you mean Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, and not Michelle
LaVaughn Robinson Obama; correct?
Gray Ghost
2c71a6...@8g2000prt.googlegroups.com:
> (we already know that the obstetrician was
> Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
I must have missed that data point. Where is that from?
JohnJohnsn
>
>> (we already know that the obstetrician was
>> Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
>
> I must have missed that data point. Where is that from?
<http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp>
RD Sandman
$bb4e...@newscene.com:
You may have hit the nail on the head. ;^)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
History shows that today's bailout will become just another entitlement.
RD Sandman
> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
> news:Xns9E9592F88...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9E958871459EBWe...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9E956D0B...@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9E94A7E0461EDWe...@216.196.97.142:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
>>>>> news:Xns9E948A4FE...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gray Ghost <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:Xns9E948D18D151We...@216.196.97.142:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:Xns9E9475A3F...@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Fred Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:4d63d293$0$68320$bb4e...@newscene.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> in message news:onh5m65ue76c8uge8...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Feb 2011 13:22:01 -0600, "Fred Brown"
>>>>>>>>>> <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>>>>>>>>>>>Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>-- --
>>>>>>>>>> 10 -
It's a follow on to the Bush agenda but he didn't change it. He is
applying of lot of Bush's fixes to things, but give him credit for making
the right choices.
RD Sandman
990f5b...@j35g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
And folks are claiming that Obama is keeping that mill churning so that
people don't see what his administration is doing. I am saying that if
the birthers quieted dowd, the mill would no longer be churning.......
Day Brown
go a long ways twards establishing credibility in both cases. I find it
odd nobody has made any available from either background.
Gray Ghost
Alright I'll give him credit for doing nothing and allowing Bush's policies
to proceed. 8)
Gray Ghost
6585aa...@y30g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
To thin.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Feb 23, 6:54 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
><old_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 23, 9:42 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
>>> Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease
>>
>> No, it would not. The birthers would simply denounce the certified
>> copy as a forgery and they would continue their lunatic raving.
>
>Until BHO-II actually releases a certified photostatic copy of his
>ORIGINAL, long-form Certificate Of Live Birth your above belief is
>merely supposition on your part.
>
>For one thing, release would provide additional information that could
>be subjectively verified, thereby aiding in the proof of the
>document's validity.
>
>As it is, the "truth deniers" claim that the data provided by the
>computer-generated COLB could have been faked when entered into the
>computer records of the Hawai'i State Department of Health's Vital
>Statistics Section.
>
>Since the information on the ORIGINAL is typed and not computer-
>generated, it could not be manipulated as can a computer record.
You think no one ever faked a typewritten document before?
>It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
>"hosted" the birth in 1961
Why should we care what hospital did so?
>(we already know that the obstetrician was
>Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
If "we know" that, then you have admitted that the birther idiocy is
nonsense, unless you want to claim that this obstetrician traveled to
Kenya.
The ONLY legitimate question is whether Obama was born in the US. For
that, we don't even need the COLB. The newspaper report is sufficient
unless someone could explain why a Honolulu paper would report a
foreign birth as local regarding some person/family of no especial
significance.
>What we do not know at this point is the name of the local registrar
>that accepted the original Certificate Of Live Birth from Dr. West,
>then submitted it to the HSDOH for recording. He could be queried as
>to his knowledge of the birth circumstances.
Only if he is alive, and only if he remembers one form having been
submitted out of thousands.
>Moreover, the local registrar will have his own records of the birth
>registration to independently back up the records of the HSDOH.
He will?
This is from 50 years ago. Why would they retain unofficial records
that long?
>While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
>Certificate Of Live Birth may not stop all the decension,, it surely
>will not hurt.
It wouldn't help, because the deniers will always find some new reason
to doubt.
>It _will_ hurt such Usenet Idiots as the Head Cherleader of the Obama
>COLB Cult, Iarnród the Abderian Simpleton, who want everyone to take
>the COLB at face value and "STFU", just because they _want_ everyone
>to.
No. It is a waste of time and a distraction from meaningful issues.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
SilentOtto
> In article <d5befd2e-f38a-4356-acd7-85807a2eb5f2
> spouted !
>
> > so blindingly stupid my CPU commit suicide.
>
> So what's the downside ?
I wouldn't get to come onto usenet and bitch slap you batshit crazy,
dogshit stupid rightards.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
SilentOtto
Yep.
If Obama released his long form birth certificate today, the birthers
would clam that he kept it hidden for so long so he could "disappear"
anyone who could expose it as a fraud.
I suppose threads like this are useful for revealing which of the
rightards really are batshit crazy, instead of just being dogshit
stupid.
>
> >It _will_ hurt such Usenet Idiots as the Head Cherleader of the Obama
> >COLB Cult, Iarnr d the Abderian Simpleton, who want everyone to take
Fred Brown
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
I knew eating all those Wheaties as a kid would pay off.
Tankfixer
618f5c...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>, - SilentOtto
silen...@hotmail.com spouted !
>
Feel free to continue to make an ass of yourself
Iarnrod
> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted: February 17, 2011
> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
> Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> lookhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EL8XBB74
HEY, JUST CHECKIN' BACK HERE...
HOW'D THIS WORK OUT FOR YA?
<snicker>
JohnJohnsn
Narcissistic Personality Disorder <Iarnród@ddob/oeg> wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, "Fred Brown" <fredbbr...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>
>> Posted: February 17, 2011
>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>
>> Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look:
>> Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
>> 2:23 pm Eastern
>> © 2011 WorldNetDaily
>>
>> In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another
>> "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy
>> the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether
>> two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
>>
>> The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the
>> case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory
>> Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
>>
>> It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a
>> hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a
>> motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given
>> their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
>>
>> Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office,
>> his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge
>> and question.
>>
>> At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal"
>> but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request."
>> And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.
>>
>> Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the
>> situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.
>>
>> He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they
>> effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
>>
>> "We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule
>> of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing
>> before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and
>> has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the
>> constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
>>
>> "Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the
>> very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president
>> the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
>
>> "Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised
>> that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?"
>> he wrote.
>> ...
>> That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one
>> member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before
>> a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
>>
>> Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a
>> discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
>>
>> "I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run
>> for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory.
>> "That's another issue."
>>
>> Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would
>> be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered
>> in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in
>> the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
>>
>> "I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said
>> Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
>>
>> "And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the
>> Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no
>> such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
>>
>> "Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can
>> serve as president, but you answer this one?"
>>
>> "We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential
>> eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
>> ...
>>
>> Read the balance of the article at http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897
>
> HEY, JUST CHECKIN' BACK HERE...
>
> HOW'D THIS WORK OUT FOR YA?
>
> <snicker>
You are even more stupid than you previously revealed here in Usenet,
Rude One.
The conference was scheduled for Friday the 4th; the SCotUS does not
routinely meet or deliberate on weekends, and today is Sunday the 6th
(even there in Denver).
A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
some time.
Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
center of the Universe!
Iarnrod
impotent loser rage:
> On Mar 5, 5:53 pm, Mighty Iarnród, Supreme Kicker of Rightarded Asswipes especially TinyJohnsn the Ultimate LUZER, proved:
>
> > HEY, JUST CHECKIN' BACK HERE...
>
> > HOW'D THIS WORK OUT FOR YA?
>
> > <snicker>
>
> You are even more stupid than you previously revealed here in Usenet,
> Rude One.
>
> The conference was scheduled for Friday the 4th;
And if you'll check your calendar (unless it's the calendar the time-
travel birfer kQQks rely on!) you'll note that the 4th comes BEFORE
the 5th, you fuckin' MOE-ron!!
BWAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
> the SCotUS does not
> routinely meet or deliberate on weekends,
Since when is FRIDAY THE 4TH part of the WEEKEND, you desperate moron?
> and today is Sunday the 6th
> (even there in Denver).
Yup, and that would be TWO days since the "conference" that tossed
thew piece of crap "lawsuit" out the back door and into the trash.
So where's your explanation for your LATEST DEFEAT, TinyJohnsn?
Hmmmm...?
BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
ANOTHER LOSS by the birfer loons!
> A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
> that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
> some time.
Hardly, dearie. Hint: It's over.
There's nothing more to deliberate. They conferred, they threw it out.
Ipso facsto. There's no suspense here, no hope for loons like you...!
> Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
Already gots one, you half-born pathetic eejit.
> And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
> center of the Universe!
Projection.
Who said I was? I merely came back to rub your face in the shit pile
you birfer loons left here. Thought you could ignore it, I bet. Uh-uh.
We will always be here to laugh at your oh so many failures.
JohnJohnsn
Narcissistic Personality Disorder <Iarnród@ddob/oeg> wrote:
>
> Narcissistic Abderian Simpleton's stupidity of the legal processes when he wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 5:53 pm, Iarnród , the Abderian Simpleton afflicted with
>> Narcissistic Personality Disorder <Iarnród@ddob/oeg> wrote:
>
>
> Since when is FRIDAY THE 4TH part of the WEEKEND, you desperate moron?
Machts nuichts, Rude One; deliberations of information obtained during
conferences occur _AFTER_ the conference.
Are you STUPID enought to believe everything occured on the day of the
conference?
If you do, then you are TOO STUPID to live! (You've already proven
that, though)
>> ...and today is Sunday the 6th (even there in Denver).
>
> Yup, and that would be TWO days since the "conference" that tossed
> thew piece of crap "lawsuit" out the back door and into the trash.
Post the published reports of that "tossing;" as they did not appear
in the Lamestream Media (who woud have made it Front Page News if it
had actually happened):
Top Stories
As of 10:38 am PST
● Libya forces fight rebels advancing toward capital (AP)
● NYC rally planned against hearing on US Muslims (AP)
● National focus on debate on Muslim radicalization (AP)
● A novice no more, Romney focuses on Obama, economy (AP)
● US warns against travel to Yemen (AP)
● Japan foreign minister quits over illegal donation (AP)
● Mom sheltering child dies as tornado hits La. town (AP)
● NC, SC politely fight over presidential birthplace (AP)
● US commandos capture 4 suspected pirates in raid (AP)
● La. tornado displaces 1,500; cleanup under way (AP)
● Study: Mom's blood test can reveal Down syndrome (AP)
● White House: Oil reserves eyed as oil prices rise (AP)
● Prince Andrew faces woes as royal wedding nears (AP)
● Miley Cyrus meets her impression as 'SNL' host (AP)
● Sheen files: A crazy week for NBC's Jeff Rossen (AP)
Apparently no one informed the Associated Press of your "stunning
news," Rude One. <ROTFLMFAO!> ;D
> So where's your explanation for your LATEST DEFEAT, TinyJohnsn?
> Hmmmm...?
>
> BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
> ANOTHER LOSS by the birfer loons!
>
>> A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
>> that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
>> some time.
>
> Hardly, dearie. Hint: It's over.
>
> There's nothing more to deliberate. They conferred, they threw it out.
> Ipso facsto. There's no suspense here, no hope for loons like you...!
>
>> Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
>
> Already gots one, you half-born pathetic eejit.
Being a Biker Dyke is a "life", I guess.
Stay with it: you are probably good to your "Biker Bitch": if you lost
her you'd have nothing.
>> And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
>> center of the Universe!
>
> Projection.
>
> Who said I was?
You do, with your every posting claiming "victory" and that you're
right and everyone else is wrong.
> I merely came back to rub your face in the shit pile you birfer loons left here.
I believe that Barack Hussein Obama II is a "natural born Citizen" of
the United States, yet you continue call me a "birfer."
That is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the facts of
the situation, you Obama COLB Cultist "Birther."
> Thought you could ignore it, I bet. Uh-uh.
>
> We will always be here to laugh at your oh so many failures.
I haven't failed yet to call you on your stupidity, Rude One.
JohnJohnsn
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 23, 6:54 pm, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
>> <old_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 23, 9:42 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> If a certified photostatic copy of the original `Certificate Of Live
>>>> Birth' were to be released, the "Kenya-born" crap would cease
>
>>> No, it would not. The birthers would simply denounce the certified
>>> copy as a forgery and they would continue their lunatic raving.
>
>> Until BHO-II actually releases a certified photostatic copy of his
>> ORIGINAL, long-form Certificate Of Live Birth your above belief is
>> merely supposition on your part.
>
>> For one thing, release would provide additional information that could
>> be subjectively verified, thereby aiding in the proof of the
>> document's validity.
>
>> As it is, the "truth deniers" claim that the data provided by the
>> computer-generated COLB could have been faked when entered into the
>> computer records of the Hawai'i State Department of Health's Vital
>> Statistics Section.
>
>> Since the information on the ORIGINAL is typed and not computer-
>> generated, it could not be manipulated as can a computer record.
>
> You think no one ever faked a typewritten document before?
Bill Burkett and Dan Rather tried: remember how _that_ turned out? <g>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy>
Truely, in order to forge a long form 1961 Hawai'i State Department of
Health Certificate Of Live Birth one would first have to forge the
blank form.
That would require "aged" paper and printing ink: not easy to do.
Then they would have to determins which period typewriter was used by
the Local Registrar so that the typeface would be correct (remember
"Rathergate").
Finally they would have to forge the signature of D. West and the
Local Registrar (remember: there are other 1961 birth certificates out
there from these same men).
A daunting, if not impossible, task.
Remember: a certified photostatic copy of the 1961 long-form
Certificate Of Live Birth requires that there _be_ an _original_
document.
And if you think that there would not be a "Hue and Cry" for forensic
authentication os the original, well, think again.
>> It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
>> "hosted" the birth in 1961
>
> Why should we care what hospital did so?
Because there have been conflicting claims as to the actual birthplace
(hospital).
Was it Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital or Queens Medical
Center; both have at one time claimed to be his birth hospital.
Only adds to the "conspiracy theory." :(
>> (we already know that the obstetrician was
>> Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
>
> If "we know" that, then you have admitted that the birther idiocy is
> nonsense, unless you want to claim that this obstetrician traveled to
> Kenya.
Never happened: birth was in Honolulu Hawai'i.
> The ONLY legitimate question is whether Obama was born in the US.
> For that, we don't even need the COLB. The newspaper report is sufficient
> unless someone could explain why a Honolulu paper would report a
> foreign birth as local regarding some person/family of no especial
> significance.
I pointed that out _long_ time back.
>> What we do not know at this point is the name of the local registrar
>> that accepted the original Certificate Of Live Birth from Dr. West,
>> then submitted it to the HSDOH for recording. He could be queried as
>> to his knowledge of the birth circumstances.
>
> Only if he is alive, and only if he remembers one form having been
> submitted out of thousands.
Believe me; if he is still alive his "memory" has surely been "jogged"
by the brouhaha. :)
>> Moreover, the local registrar will have his own records of the birth
>> registration to independently back up the records of the HSDOH.
>
> He will?
>
> This is from 50 years ago. Why would they retain unofficial records
> that long?
The Local Registrar's records of documents submitted to him for
endorsement and forwarding to the State Vital Statistics Office are
"Official" and subject to the state's Records Retention laws (here in
Texas back then, it was "forever"; don't know as to HI).
>> While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
>> Certificate Of Live Birth may not stop all the decension,, it surely
>> will not hurt.
>
> It wouldn't help, because the deniers will always find some new reason
> to doubt.
Until it actually happens, that is mere speculation.
>> It _will_ hurt such Usenet Idiots as the Head Cherleader of the Obama
>> COLB Cult, Iarnród the Abderian Simpleton, who want everyone to take
>> the COLB at face value and "STFU", just because they _want_ everyone to.
>
> No. It is a waste of time and a distraction from meaningful issues.
BINGO!
That's the _very_ reason BHO-II keeps it "alive."
So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
Iarnrod
birfer clown foamed in impotent kooker rage:
> On Mar 6, 11:22 am, Mighty Iarnród, the Supreme Kicker of Rightarded Birfer/Twoofer Asswipes especially the clueless TonyJohnsn, proved:
> > On Mar 6, 9:24 am, TinyJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> the pathetic birfer clown foamed in impotent kooker rage:
>
> >> On Mar 5, 5:53 pm, Mighty Iarnród, the Supreme Kicker of Rightarded Birfer/Twoofer Asswipes especially the clueless TonyJohnsn, proved:
"Machts nuichts?" Wanna twy dat one again, Tiny?
> Rude One; deliberations of information obtained during
> conferences occur _AFTER_ the conference.
O Stupid One, there was NO information obtained. It is DISMISSED.
SCOTUS is not taking it up. Thrown out. The filing only needed to be
stamped with the "STFU" stamp. SCOTUS is not reviewing it. It's over,
case is closed, as Obama MADE HISTORY by being the FIRST and ONLY
presidential candidate in the history of the republic to release his
birth certificate and prove beyond all doubt that he is a natural born
citizen over age 35. Not one single other president ever did this, and
so there will ALWAYS be a twinge of doubt about all presidents'
eligibility EXCEPT FOR OBAMA!!
FACT you cannot refute.
> Are you STUPID enought to believe everything occured on the day of the
> conference?
Are you stupid enough to believe this case has any more merit than all
the others that have been tossed into the trash by SCOTUS? How can ANY
case have any merit when Obama is the only president in history to
release his birth certificate? You are beyond stupid. Your racism has
you absolutely in a frothing lather!! This is too funny to watch!
> If you do, then you are TOO STUPID to live! (You've already proven
> that, though)
Yet I am oh so much smarter than you in all things. FACT.
> >> ...and today is Sunday the 6th (even there in Denver).
>
> > Yup, and that would be TWO days since the "conference" that tossed
> > thew piece of crap "lawsuit" out the back door and into the trash.
>
> Post the published reports of that "tossing;" as they did not appear
> in the Lamestream Media (who woud have made it Front Page News if it
> had actually happened):
They don't report such lame shit. They announce the cases they accept.
Too bad so sad for you!
YOU post the MSM's reporting that the case has been accepted....
We'll wait!!
BWAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
> Apparently no one informed the Associated Press of your "stunning
> news," Rude One. <ROTFLMFAO!> ;D
Apparently, O Stupid One, no one gives a shit about yet another loser
birfer case being DISMISSED!! It was over years ago.
And since when do you rely on MSM, fuzznuts?
> > So where's your explanation for your LATEST DEFEAT, TinyJohnsn?
> > Hmmmm...?
>
> > BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
> > ANOTHER LOSS by the birfer loons!
>
> >> A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
> >> that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
> >> some time.
>
> > Hardly, dearie. Hint: It's over.
>
> > There's nothing more to deliberate. They conferred, they threw it out.
> > Ipso facsto. There's no suspense here, no hope for loons like you...!
>
> >> Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
>
> > Already gots one, you half-born pathetic eejit.
>
> Being a Biker Dyke is a "life", I guess.
You're a Biker Dyke? I thought you were a guy. Hmmm, OK by me.
> Stay with it: you are probably good to your "Biker Bitch": if you lost
> her you'd have nothing.
Lame-o gay retorts from right wing nut jobs are nothing new, of
course. But in your case it's even more lame than usual since you're
proven to be such a pathetic loser.
> >> And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
> >> center of the Universe!
>
> > Projection.
>
> > Who said I was?
>
> You do, with your every posting claiming "victory" and that you're
> right and everyone else is wrong.
BWAAAHAHAHAHAA!! I see your stupidity ahs pvercome your "brain" again,
TinyJohnsn. I claim victory when I've won it. In this case it is
beyond dispute that I gave won. I don't claim "everyone else" is
wrong. just those who, like you, ARE wrong!
> > I merely came back to rub your face in the shit pile you birfer loons left here.
>
> I believe that Barack Hussein Obama II is a "natural born Citizen" of
> the United States, yet you continue call me a "birfer."
As you are.
You reject the proven truth of the COLB.
> That is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the facts of
> the situation, you Obama COLB Cultist "Birther."
Actually it is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the
facts of the situation, as I have proven. You carry on about the COLB
endlessly as though you had a valid point, which you don't.
> > Thought you could ignore it, I bet. Uh-uh.
>
> > We will always be here to laugh at your oh so many failures.
>
> I haven't failed yet to call you on your stupidity, Rude One.
That in itself is a documented failure since of course I have bested
you in every single way, TinyJohnsn.
Iarnrod
Birfer KQQKs foamed in impotent rage:> > JTinyJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> King of the Birfer KQQKs foamed in impotent rage:
> >> It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
> >> "hosted" thebirthin 1961
>
> > Why should we care what hospital did so?
>
> Because there have been conflicting claims as to the actual birthplace
> (hospital).
No there haven't, and even if there were, it would be immaterial. No
such "confusion" needs to be "cleared up" at all because it has
nothign to do with the Constitutional eligibility question, which the
COLB settled indisputably for all time and beyond question. There is
nothing about either hospital being the birth place (it was
Kapi'olani) that can possibly make either of them not be on US soil.
Therefore, there is no "confusion" that needs any clearing up in order
to determine eligibility.
> Was it Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital or Queens Medical
> Center; both have at one time claimed to be his birth hospital.
No, they both have not. Only Kapi'olani. you're simply lying, like all
rightards must.
> Only adds to the "conspiracy theory." :(
It does no such thing. There is no "conspiracy theory." There are only
rightard fabrications, one after another, in an attempt to destroy
America with your hatred.
> >> While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
> >>CertificateOf LiveBirthmay not stop all the decension,, it surely
> >> will not hurt.
>
> > It wouldn't help, because the deniers will always find some new reason
> > to doubt.
>
> Until it actually happens, that is mere speculation.
Wrong. Even if the long form were released, Obama would still be a
black man, and that is after all the root of the hatred.
> So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
And so much more than any previous president since Obama is the FIRST
and ONLY to release his birth certificate prior to inauguration to
prove his natural born citizenship. QED.
JohnJohnsn
Narcissistic Personality Disorder <Iarnród@ddob/org>, Head Cheerleader
of the Obama COLB Cult, wrote:
>
> On Mar 6, 11:38 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> pointed out Iarnród the
> Narcissistic Abderian Simpleton's stupidity of the legal processes when he wrote:
>
>> Narcissistic Personality Disorder <Iarnród@ddob/org> wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 6, 9:24 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> pointed out Iarnród the
>>> Narcissistic Abderian Simpleton's stupidity of the legal processes when he wrote:
>
>
> "Machts nuichts?" Wanna twy dat one again, Tiny?
Wide finger typo; BFD.
>> deliberations of information obtained during
>> conferences occur _AFTER_ the conference.
>
> O Stupid One, there was NO information obtained. It is DISMISSED.
Prove it: post where the SCotUS announced the results of the 4 March
2011 conference.
> SCOTUS is not taking it up. Thrown out. The filing only needed to be
> stamped with the "STFU" stamp. SCOTUS is not reviewing it. It's over,
> case is closed, as Obama MADE HISTORY by being the FIRST and ONLY
> presidential candidate in the history of the republic to release his
> birth certificate and prove beyond all doubt that he is a natural born
> citizen over age 35. Not one single other president ever did this, and
> so there will ALWAYS be a twinge of doubt about all presidents'
> eligibility EXCEPT FOR OBAMA!!
>
> FACT you cannot refute.
Your incessant ranting and raving does not make it so, Rude One.
>> Are you STUPID enought to believe everything occured on the day of the
>> conference?
>
> Are you stupid enough to believe this case has any more merit than all
> the others that have been tossed into the trash by SCOTUS? How can
> ANY case have any merit when Obama is the only president in history
> to release his birth certificate?
More unsupported assertion by the Rude One: just more evidence of her
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
> You are beyond stupid. Your racism has you absolutely in a frothing lather!!
You are the racist here, Rude One: insisting that the child of a
Caucasian is "black" merely because they are of a light shade
of tan. <http://tinyurl.com/BHO-II-photo>
> This is too funny to watch!
Feel free to die laughing: you will make the world a better place.
>> If you do, then you are TOO STUPID to live! (You've already proven
>> that, though)
>
> Yet I am oh so much smarter than you in all things. FACT.
There's that Narcissistic Personality Disorder of yours showing
again.
>>>> ...and today is Sunday the 6th (even there in Denver).
>>>
>>> Yup, and that would be TWO days since the "conference" that tossed thew
"thew"? You have wide fingers, too? <g>
>>> piece of crap "lawsuit" out the back door and into the trash.
>>
>> Post the published reports of that "tossing;" as they did not appear
>> in the Lamestream Media (who woud have made it Front Page News
>> if it had actually happened):
>>
>> Top Stories
>> As of 10:38 am PST
>> ● Libya forces fight rebels advancing toward capital (AP)
>> ● NYC rally planned against hearing on US Muslims (AP)
>> ● National focus on debate on Muslim radicalization (AP)
>> ● A novice no more, Romney focuses on Obama, economy (AP)
>> ● US warns against travel to Yemen (AP)
>> ● Japan foreign minister quits over illegal donation (AP)
>> ● Mom sheltering child dies as tornado hits La. town (AP)
>> ● NC, SC politely fight over presidential birthplace (AP)
>> ● US commandos capture 4 suspected pirates in raid (AP)
>> ● La. tornado displaces 1,500; cleanup under way (AP)
>> ● Study: Mom's blood test can reveal Down syndrome (AP)
>> ● White House: Oil reserves eyed as oil prices rise (AP)
>> ● Prince Andrew faces woes as royal wedding nears (AP)
>> ● Miley Cyrus meets her impression as 'SNL' host (AP)
>> ● Sheen files: A crazy week for NBC's Jeff Rossen (AP)
As of 09:44 pm PST
● Revelation about Lincoln stirs controversy (AP)
● Libya forces try to halt rebel move toward capital (AP)
● White House praises Muslims ahead of House hearing (AP)
● New Egypt PM names most of new Cabinet (AP)
● Farewells for 2 space crews and for Discovery (AP)
● Rio Carnival group bounces back from fire (AP)
● Gates in Afghanistan to evaluate war progress (AP)
● Nevada mine death: Questions on called-off rescue (AP)
● After historic gains, are stocks nearing a bubble? (AP)
● Lava spews 65 feet high after crater collapse (AP)
● Nevada mine death: Questions on called-off rescue (AP)
● After historic gains, are stocks nearing a bubble? (AP)
● 6 killed, 3 injured in Texas mobile home fire (AP)
● To LOL, or not LOL? That is the question (AP)
● Tire gamble helps Edwards win in Las Vegas (AP)
● $430k Love settlement shows tweets can be costly (AP)
● Obama "Birther" Iarnród , the Narcissistic Abderian Simpleton,
• STILL stupidly believes that the SCotUS issues rulings the very
• same day they hear arguments: proves herself to be an even BIGGER
• a FOOL!
> They don't report such lame shit. They announce the cases they accept.
> Too bad so sad for you!
Guess you missed where they announced docketing the 4 March 2011
conference then.
> YOU posted the MSM's reporting that the case has been accepted....
Wait a minute: you _just_ stated they did _not_ accept the case for
conference.
So, your Narcissistic Personality Disorder is compounded with
Altzheimer's Disease. So sad. <NOT!>
> We'll wait!!
Far from it: you "jumped the gun" here; and now you are desperately
trying to draw attention away from your screwup!
Suggestion: stay away from your keyboard _until_ some sort of official
SCotUS notice is released: you _might_ not look so desperate then.
> BWAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Abderian laughter: Given to incessant or idiotic laughter; inclined to
foolish or incessant merriment; from Abdera, in Thrace, whose citizens
were proverbial as rustic simpletons who would laugh at anything or
anyone they didn't understand (making their town the Hellenic
equivalent of Gotham).
>> Apparently no one informed the Associated Press of your "stunning
>> news," Rude One. <ROTFLMFAO!> ;D
>
> Apparently, O Stupid One, no one gives a shit about yet another loser
> birfer case being DISMISSED!! It was over years ago.
>
> And since when do you rely on MSM, fuzznuts?
Since they are you Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
LOSERS' (est. 2010-11-02) "bible," we know you accept _only_ what they
announce.
And IF the SCotUS had issued a conference ruling saying what you
_want_ them to say, the Lamestream Media would be placing it "Above
The Fold" is big bold ALL CAPS headlines.
But they have not (see ↑above↑ for the latest "Top Stories" from the
Associated Press {and the "TC TPG Press"}).
POINT PROVEN!
>>> So where's your explanation for your LATEST DEFEAT, TinyJohnsn?
>>> Hmmmm...?
No "defeat" of my "point" has occured, Rude One.
You, OTOH, have again "gone down in FLAMES!"
>>> BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
>>>
>>> ANOTHER LOSS by the birfer loons!
>>>
>>>> A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
>>>> that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
>>>> some time.
>>>
>>> Hardly, dearie. Hint: It's over.
>>>
>>> There's nothing more to deliberate. They conferred, they threw it out.
>>> Ipso facsto. There's no suspense here, no hope for loons like you...!
>>>
>>>> Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
>>>
>>> Already gots one, you half-born pathetic eejit.
>>
>> Being a Biker Dyke is a "life", I guess. Stay with it:
>
> You're a Biker Dyke? I thought you were a guy. Hmmm, OK by me.
You're the Dyke On Bike: you even posted your picture to the Web:
<http://ddob.org>
>> you are probably good to your "Biker Bitch": if you lost
>> her you'd have nothing.
>
> Lame-o gay retorts from right wing nut jobs are nothing new, of
> course. But in your case it's even more lame than usual since you're
> proven to be such a pathetic loser.
I haven't lost yet, Rude One; especially _not_ to you!
>>>> And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
>>>> center of the Universe!
>>>
>>> Projection.
>>>
>>> Who said I was?
>>
>> You do, with your every posting claiming "victory" and that you're
>> right and everyone else is wrong.
>
> BWAAAHAHAHAHAA!! I see your stupidity ahs pvercome your "brain" again,
"pvercome": who's having "typo trouble" now? <g>
> TinyJohnsn. I claim victory when I've won it.
You haven't yet.
What's in that "Victory Iced Tea" you're always guzzling?
Some hallucinogenic, like LSD, no doubt!
> In this case it is beyond dispute that I gave won. I don't claim "everyone else" is
> wrong. just those who, like you, ARE wrong!
The only ones you agree with are your fellow Obama COLB Cultists.
>>> I merely came back to rub your face in the shit pile you birfer loons left here.
>>
>> I believe that Barack Hussein Obama II is a "natural born Citizen" of
>> the United States, yet you continue call me a "birfer."
>
> As you are.
>
> You reject the proven truth of the COLB.
I reject your neverending claim that this is all that is necessary to
prove BHO-II legitimacy to hold the office of president; along wiith
your neverending demand that everyone "STFU" and false assertion that
the U.S. Constitution "orders" everyone to accept BHO-II's "COLB as
proof. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE; and I've PROVEN IT!
As long as your Obama "Birthers" keep saying that no one needs to see
a certified photostatic copy of the original 1961 Hawai'i State
Department of Health "Certificate Of Live Birth" for Barack Hussein
Obama II, _you_ will perpetuate the controversy.
Of course, since this is your entire, and _only_, platform for your
"fifteen minutes," you do NOT want the controversy to end.
>> That is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the facts of
>> the situation, you Obama COLB Cultist "Birther."
>
> Actually it is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the
> facts of the situation, as I have proven. You carry on about the COLB
> endlessly as though you had a valid point, which you don't.
It is _you_ that "carr(ies) on about the COLB endlessly," Rude One: we
just call you on your incessant pathological repetition (a clinical
symptom of your Narcissistic Personality Disorder) about it.
>>> Thought you could ignore it, I bet. Uh-uh.
>>>
>>> We will always be here to laugh at your oh so many failures.
>>
>> I haven't failed yet to call you on your stupidity, Rude One.
>
> That in itself is a documented failure since of course I have bested
> you in every single way, TinyJohnsn.
Never happened, you delusional "Birther."
Iarnrod
foamed in impotent kooker rage:
> > On Mar 6, 11:38 am, TinyJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> the birfloon foamed in impotent kooker rage:
>
> >> On Mar 6, 11:22 am, Mighty Iarnród, Supreme and Undefeated Kicker of Rightarded Birflooners Especially TinyJohnsn, proved beyond doubt:
>
> >>> On Mar 6, 9:24 am, TinyJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> the birfloon foamed in impotent kooker rage:
>
> >>>> On Mar 5, 5:53 pm, Mighty Iarnród, Supreme and Undefeated Kicker of Rightarded Birflooners Especially TinyJohnsn, proved beyond doubt:
Total ignorance, actually. Plus wrong. Friday will always come before
Saturday, You might "think" that's not a big deal, but try waiting
until Saturday to do something that needs to be done on Friday and
tell us what happens, nitwit.
> >> deliberations of information obtained during
> >> conferences occur _AFTER_ the conference.
>
> > O Stupid One, there was NO information obtained. It is DISMISSED.
>
> Prove it: post where the SCotUS announced the results of the 4 March
> 2011 conference.
They didn't take it up. Your FAILURE to produce results showing the
justices agreed to take the case only further highlights the
frustratingly stupid life of you birfloons.
> > SCOTUS is not taking it up. Thrown out. The filing only needed to be
> > stamped with the "STFU" stamp. SCOTUS is not reviewing it. It's over,
> > case is closed, as Obama MADE HISTORY by being the FIRST and ONLY
> > presidential candidate in the history of the republic to release his
> > birth certificate and prove beyond all doubt that he is a natural born
> > citizen over age 35. Not one single other president ever did this, and
> > so there will ALWAYS be a twinge of doubt about all presidents'
> > eligibility EXCEPT FOR OBAMA!!
>
> > FACT you cannot refute.
>
> Your incessant ranting and raving does not make it so, Rude One.
The fact that is is undeniably true makes it so, O Stupid One.
> >> Are you STUPID enought to believe everything occured on the day of the
> >> conference?
>
> > Are you stupid enough to believe this case has any more merit than all
> > the others that have been tossed into the trash by SCOTUS? How can
> > ANY case have any merit when Obama is the only president in history
> > to release his birth certificate?
>
> More unsupported assertion by the Rude One: just more evidence of her
> Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
More evidence of my always being correct, of course. this is not in
dispute.
> > You are beyond stupid. Your racism has you absolutely in a frothing lather!!
>
> You are the racist here, Rude One:
No, you are, O Stupid One. Proven FACT you cannot dispute,
> insisting that the child of a
> Caucasian is "black" merely because they are of a light shade
> of tan. <http://tinyurl.com/BHO-II-photo>
BWAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Still with the racist denial of Obama's blackness!!
You are TOO FUCKIN' FUNNY!! You never got any traction with that one
before, it's too funny that you trot it out again, kleagle!!
> >> If you do, then you are TOO STUPID to live! (You've already proven
> >> that, though)
>
> > Yet I am oh so much smarter than you in all things. FACT.
>
> There's that Narcissistic Personality Disorder of yours showing
> again.
There's that "being correct" thing of mine again! The FACT that you
can only insult and not disprove says it all.
> >>>> ...and today is Sunday the 6th (even there in Denver).
>
> >>> Yup, and that would be TWO days since the "conference" that tossed the
> >>> piece of crap "lawsuit" out the back door and into the trash.
>
> >> Post the published reports of that "tossing;" as they did not appear
> >> in the Lamestream Media (who woud have made it Front Page News
> >> if it had actually happened):
> >
> > They don't report such lame shit. They announce the cases they accept.
> > Too bad so sad for you!
>
> Guess you missed where they announced docketing the 4 March 2011
> conference then.
They did no such thing, There was no announcement at all. It was
merely on the docket for dismissal on Friday.
> > YOU posted the MSM's reporting that the case has been accepted....
>
> Wait a minute: you _just_ stated they did _not_ accept the case for
> conference.
I did no such thing. I said it was DISMISSED at the conference. That's
what it was for.
> So, your Narcissistic Personality Disorder is compounded with
> Altzheimer's Disease. So sad. <NOT!>
So, your lack of reading comprehension is compounded by your utter
racist stupidity. So sad <TRUE!>
> > We'll wait!!
>
> Far from it: you "jumped the gun" here; and now you are desperately
> trying to draw attention away from your screwup!
Nope. Gospel. Take it to the bank.
> Suggestion: stay away from your keyboard _until_ some sort of official
> SCotUS notice is released: you _might_ not look so desperate then.
No need. DISMISSED!!
> > BWAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
>
> Abderian laughter:
Belly laughter at your stupidity!!
> >> Apparently no one informed the Associated Press of your "stunning
> >> news," Rude One. <ROTFLMFAO!> ;D
>
> > Apparently, O Stupid One, no one gives a shit about yet another loser
> > birfer case being DISMISSED!! It was over years ago.
>
> > And since when do you rely on MSM, fuzznuts?
>
> Since they are you Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
> LOSERS' (est. 2010-11-02) "bible," we know you accept _only_ what they
> announce.
Ummm, dearie, YOU are the one relying on it, not me... wanna think
that one through again? <chortle>
> And IF the SCotUS had issued a conference ruling saying what you
> _want_ them to say, the Lamestream Media would be placing it "Above
> The Fold" is big bold ALL CAPS headlines.
Nope, likely won't make any news anywhere at all since no one cares
about you birfloons anymore except this remote corner of usenet where
I use you as my punching bag.
> But they have not (see ↑above↑ for the latest "Top Stories" from the
> Associated Press {and the "TC TPG Press"}).
>
> POINT PROVEN!
Umm, dearie, the lack of coverage of this mundane routine dismissal
does not mean it didn't happen.
> >>> So where's your explanation for your LATEST DEFEAT, TinyJohnsn?
> >>> Hmmmm...?
>
> No "defeat" of my "point" has occured, Rude One.
Yet it has, O Stupid One. you know it, I know it.
> You, OTOH, have again "gone down in FLAMES!"
You have an overly delusional imagination since I won.
> >>> BWAHAAHAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
> >>> ANOTHER LOSS by the birfer loons!
>
> >>>> A "reasonable and prudent person" (which leaves you _out_!) realizes
> >>>> that the results of the conference will not likely be determined for
> >>>> some time.
>
> >>> Hardly, dearie. Hint: It's over.
>
> >>> There's nothing more to deliberate. They conferred, they threw it out.
> >>> Ipso facsto. There's no suspense here, no hope for loons like you...!
>
> >>>> Do try to "Get A LIFE!"
>
> >>> Already gots one, you half-born pathetic eejit.
>
> >> Being a Biker Dyke is a "life", I guess. Stay with it:
>
> > You're a Biker Dyke? I thought you were a guy. Hmmm, OK by me.
>
> You're the Dyke On Bike:
That comes as a great surprise to my hubby and children and
grandchildren -- soemthing a loser like you will obviously never know
in your own fetid life.
> you even posted your picture to the Web:
I have been told I resemble Sally Field.
Here is you: http://tinyurl.com/artiemorty
FACT.
> >> you are probably good to your "Biker Bitch": if you lost
> >> her you'd have nothing.
>
> > Lame-o gay retorts from right wing nut jobs are nothing new, of
> > course. But in your case it's even more lame than usual since you're
> > proven to be such a pathetic loser.
>
> I haven't lost yet, Rude One; especially _not_ to you!
You have ONLY lost and ALWAYS to me. O Stupid One.
> >>>> And seek professional psychiatric help for that NPD: you are _not_ the
> >>>> center of the Universe!
>
> >>> Projection.
>
> >>> Who said I was?
>
> >> You do, with your every posting claiming "victory" and that you're
> >> right and everyone else is wrong.
>
> > BWAAAHAHAHAHAA!! I see your stupidity has overcome your "brain" again,
> > TinyJohnsn. I claim victory when I've won it.
>
> You haven't yet.
I have always, of course. Not in dispute.
<sips Victory Iced Tea>
> > In this case it is beyond dispute that I gave won. I don't claim "everyone else" is
> > wrong. just those who, like you, ARE wrong!
>
> The only ones you agree with are your fellow Obama COLB Cultists.
Sorry but the entire world agrees with me except for rightarded losers
like you.
> >>> I merely came back to rub your face in the shit pile you birfer loons left here.
>
> >> I believe that Barack Hussein Obama II is a "natural born Citizen" of
> >> the United States, yet you continue call me a "birfer."
>
> > As you are.
>
> > You reject the proven truth of the COLB.
>
> I reject your neverending claim that this is all that is necessary to
> prove BHO-II legitimacy to hold the office of president;
So like I said, you reject the proven truth, The COLB of course DOES
prove all that is constitutionally necessary and he's the first
president EVER to do so! This is FACT you cannot dispute.
> along wiith
"wiith!" BEWWHAAAHAAAHAHAHAAA!!!
> your neverending
"neverending!!" BWAAAHAAHAAHAA!!!
> demand that everyone "STFU" and false assertion that
> the U.S. Constitution "orders" everyone to accept BHO-II's "COLB as
> proof. It doesn't say that ANYWHERE;
It odes of course. You are required to accept it, you have no choice,
> and I've PROVEN IT!
You have proven you're an America-hating liar.
> As long as your Obama "Birthers" keep saying that no one needs to see
> a certified photostatic copy of the original 1961 Hawai'i State
> Department of Health "Certificate Of Live Birth" for Barack Hussein
> Obama II, _you_ will perpetuate the controversy.
No one needs to see it of course, not in dispute. No other
presidential candidate in history ever needed to do such a thing and
neither does Obama, who already became the first to release his actual
state certified birth certificate.
Listen, birfloon, your 15 seconds was up a long time ago!
> Of course, since this is your entire, and _only_, platform for your
> "fifteen minutes," you do NOT want the controversy to end.
Because it helps ensure his landslide re-election.
> >> That is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the facts of
> >> the situation, you Obama COLB Cultist "Birther."
>
> > Actually it is a demonstration of your inability to comprehend the
> > facts of the situation, as I have proven. You carry on about the COLB
> > endlessly as though you had a valid point, which you don't.
>
> It is _you_ that "carr(ies) on about the COLB endlessly," Rude One:
No, it is YOU, O Stupid One.
> we
> just call you on your incessant pathological repetition (a clinical
> symptom of your Narcissistic Personality Disorder) about it.
Nope, you just deny it and deny it and we keep shoving it up your
stupid kooker asses and laughing at you! BWAAAAHAHAAAHAHAHAH!!
> >>> Thought you could ignore it, I bet. Uh-uh.
>
> >>> We will always be here to laugh at your oh so many failures.
>
> >> I haven't failed yet to call you on your stupidity, Rude One.
>
> > That in itself is a documented failure since of course I have bested
> > you in every single way, TinyJohnsn.
>
> Never happened, you delusional "Birther."
Happens in every single post. You calling ME a birfer is only more
proof of your delusional rightardedness, TinyJohnsn.
Bob LeChevalier
>Remember: a certified photostatic copy of the 1961 long-form
>Certificate Of Live Birth requires that there _be_ an _original_
>document.
>
>And if you think that there would not be a "Hue and Cry" for forensic
>authentication os the original, well, think again.
Thereby indicating that Hawaii releasing such a photostatic copy would
not satisfy the birthers, since such forensic authorization would
require the actual original.
>> It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
>>> "hosted" the birth in 1961
>>
>> Why should we care what hospital did so?
>
>Because there have been conflicting claims as to the actual birthplace
>(hospital).
So what? It was in Hawaii, so he was born in this country. That is
all that matters.
>Was it Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital or Queens Medical
>Center; both have at one time claimed to be his birth hospital.
There is no reason to care.
>>> (we already know that the obstetrician was
>>> Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
>>
>> If "we know" that, then you have admitted that the birther idiocy is
>> nonsense, unless you want to claim that this obstetrician traveled to
>> Kenya.
>
>Never happened: birth was in Honolulu Hawai'i.
Therefore the whole birther controversy is a waste of time and
resources that should not be catered to.
>> The ONLY legitimate question is whether Obama was born in the US.
>> For that, we don't even need the COLB. The newspaper report is sufficient
>> unless someone could explain why a Honolulu paper would report a
>> foreign birth as local regarding some person/family of no especial
>> significance.
>
>I pointed that out _long_ time back.
So did I.
>>> What we do not know at this point is the name of the local registrar
>>> that accepted the original Certificate Of Live Birth from Dr. West,
>>> then submitted it to the HSDOH for recording. He could be queried as
>>> to his knowledge of the birth circumstances.
>>
>> Only if he is alive, and only if he remembers one form having been
>> submitted out of thousands.
>
>Believe me; if he is still alive his "memory" has surely been "jogged"
>by the brouhaha. :)
If his memory has been colored at all by the controversy, it cannot be
said that his testimony would resolve anything.
>>> Moreover, the local registrar will have his own records of the birth
>>> registration to independently back up the records of the HSDOH.
>>
>> He will?
>>
>> This is from 50 years ago. Why would they retain unofficial records
>> that long?
>
>The Local Registrar's records of documents submitted to him for
>endorsement and forwarding to the State Vital Statistics Office are
>"Official" and subject to the state's Records Retention laws (here in
>Texas back then, it was "forever"; don't know as to HI).
Remember that the Bush administration emails were official documents,
but huge quantities of them were somehow "lost" even while he was
still in office. Despite laws and known interest in looking at those
emails.
It may have been "forever" back then, but that doesn't mean that it
still is forever, and the documents may no longer be retained under
current rules.
For Texas,
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/slrm/recordspubs/rrs3.pdf
suggests to me that anything like supporting logs for vital records
which have been transferred to the state archives, might not be kept
at all after such transfer. Some logs might be kept as long as 10
years.
Hawaii is a little clearer in its classification (and the line between
"local" and "state" is almost nonexistant in that state). I think the
sort of record you are talking about is 1.16 in
http://hawaii.gov/dags/archives/records-management/GRS%202002%20-%20revised%205-06.pdf
which means that the documents would likely only be kept for 2 years,
a registrar not being a particularly high office, and maybe only 1,
since the substantive information would have been incorporated into
the certificate.
>>> While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
>>> Certificate Of Live Birth may not stop all the decension,, it surely
>>> will not hurt.
>>
>> It wouldn't help, because the deniers will always find some new reason
>> to doubt.
>
>Until it actually happens, that is mere speculation.
But as noted above, you share my speculation.
>That's the _very_ reason BHO-II keeps it "alive."
He doesn't keep it alive. The birthers do. You've admitted above
that merely producing another official copy won't satisfy birthers. So
even if Obama could request a copy to be released, there will still be
demands for that forensic investigation, for which Obama has no
relevant authority.
>So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
It has nothing to do with his administration. It became irrelevant
the minute he was sworn into office, which was also the moment that
his administration first had any power to provide "transparency".
Bob LeChevalier
>Prove it: post where the SCotUS announced the results of the 4 March
>2011 conference.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
Generally, if a case is considered at a Conference, viewers can expect
that the disposition of a case will be announced on an Orders List
that will be released at 10:00 a.m. the following Monday.
Results were announced at 10AM Eastern today (7 Mar).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030711zor.pdf
10-678 near the top of page 11, request for rehearing denied.
It looks like precisely one case of the several dozen considered was
taken. A few were sent back to the appeals court for futher
consideration
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-03-04-11/
discusses around 2 dozen cases that had a chance of being accepted by
the court, including the only one that was accepted.
>Your incessant ranting and raving does not make it so, Rude One.
The court dismissal order does make it so, though.
>> They don't report such lame shit. They announce the cases they accept.
>> Too bad so sad for you!
>
>Guess you missed where they announced docketing the 4 March 2011
>conference then.
As noted above, making the conference doesn't mean that the case will
be considered. The conference had some 200 cases on its docket. Even
allowing 2 minutes per case would have taken all day (and I doubt that
the conference lasted that long). Probably the bulk of the cases that
were dismissed were not even discussed during the conference
>> YOU posted the MSM's reporting that the case has been accepted....
>
>Wait a minute: you _just_ stated they did _not_ accept the case for
>conference.
Putting it on the conference docket is not "accepting the case" as
understood by most people.
>And IF the SCotUS had issued a conference ruling saying what you
>_want_ them to say, the Lamestream Media would be placing it "Above
>The Fold" is big bold ALL CAPS headlines.
So far the NYT has had an article on one of the three actual
*decisions* released today. No mention at all of conference results.
The Washington Post hasn't even produced an article about the
decisions.
The conference orders aren't important enough to be reported (with
orders in 200 cases, most of them consisting only of the name of the
case, there isn't much to report anyway).
JohnJohnsn
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember: a certified photostatic copy of the 1961 long-form
>> Certificate Of Live Birth requires that there _be_ an _original_
>> document.
>
>> And if you think that there would not be a "Hue and Cry" for forensic
>> authentication os the original, well, think again.
>
> Thereby indicating that Hawaii releasing such a photostatic copy
> would not satisfy the birthers, since such forensic authorization would
> require the actual original.
1) Only the few "hard core" would still not accept the evidence (it's
the computer-generated one that most of people reject): they are fewer
than the Obama COLB Cultists believe there to be; and,
2) Access to the original would be via court order and not merely
because that "hard core" still doesn't believe. Support for their
effort would, in all likelihood, "evaporate" with the release of a
certified photostatic copy of Obama's _original_ 1961 "Certificate Of
Live Birth."
>>> It would also clear up the confusion as to just which hospital
>>>> "hosted" the birth in 1961
>
>>> Why should we care what hospital did so?
>
>> Because there have been conflicting claims as to the actual birthplace (hospital).
>
> So what? It was in Hawaii, so he was born in this country. That is
> all that matters.
>
>> Was it Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital or Queens Medical
>> Center; both have at one time claimed to be his birth hospital.
>
> There is no reason to care.
The "reason to care" is that the "confusion" bolsters the controversy
as to the "COLB" information's authenticity.
Actual written evidence is better than speculative controversy.
>>>> (we already know that the obstetrician was
>>>> Dr. Rodney T. West; now deceased).
>
>>> If "we know" that, then you have admitted that the birther idiocy is
>>> nonsense, unless you want to claim that this obstetrician traveled to
>>> Kenya.
>
>> Never happened: birth was in Honolulu Hawai'i.
>
> Therefore the whole birther controversy is a waste of time and
> resources that should not be catered to.
Until it is settled (or at least, drastically reduced) it will
continue to exist; even expanding the closer we get to the 2012
election cycle.
Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_ over
it, just because the "on-the-fence" voters are _tired_ of his "dodging
the issue" and do not want "Four More Years" of the same "Obama is
ILLEGAL" bu77$h!t!.
It is actually in his own best interest to bring this "to a head."
>>> The ONLY legitimate question is whether Obama was born in the US.
>>> For that, we don't even need the COLB. The newspaper report is sufficient
>>> unless someone could explain why a Honolulu paper would report a
>>> foreign birth as local regarding some person/family of no especial
>>> significance.
>
>> I pointed that out _long_ time back.
>
> So did I.
>
>>>> What we do not know at this point is the name of the local registrar
>>>> that accepted the original Certificate Of Live Birth from Dr. West,
>>>> then submitted it to the HSDOH for recording. He could be queried as
>>>> to his knowledge of the birth circumstances.
>
>>> Only if he is alive, and only if he remembers one form having been
>>> submitted out of thousands.
>
>> Believe me; if he is still alive his "memory" has surely been "jogged"
>> by the brouhaha. :)
>
> If his memory has been colored at all by the controversy, it cannot be
> said that his testimony would resolve anything.
Possibly; but still speculation.
>>>> Moreover, the local registrar will have his own records of the birth
>>>> registration to independently back up the records of the HSDOH.
>
>>> He will?
>
>>> This is from 50 years ago. Why would they retain unofficial records
>>> that long?
>
>> The Local Registrar's records of documents submitted to him for
>> endorsement and forwarding to the State Vital Statistics Office are
>> "Official" and subject to the state's Records Retention laws (here in
>> Texas back then, it was "forever"; don't know as to HI).
>
> Remember that the Bush administration emails were official documents,
> but huge quantities of them were somehow "lost" even while he was
> still in office. Despite laws and known interest in looking at those
> emails.
>
> It may have been "forever" back then, but that doesn't mean that it
> still is forever, and the documents may no longer be retained under
> current rules.
>
> For Texas,http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/slrm/recordspubs/rrs3.pdf
> suggests to me that anything like supporting logs for vital records
> which have been transferred to the state archives, might not be kept
> at all after such transfer. Some logs might be kept as long as 10
> years.
I was a Texas elected official when that law came into existance. The
small offices/officials did not necessarily turn in their records,
unless their office ceased to exist (death, abolishment, etc.)
Example: a Texas Notary Public keeps their Notarial Journal _forever_
(as long as they retain their Notary Commission).
If they die or leave office their journal goes to the County Clerk,
and then the "timetable" kicks in.
> Hawaii is a little clearer in its classification (and the line between
> "local" and "state" is almost nonexistant in that state). I think the
> sort of record you are talking about is 1.16 in
> http://hawaii.gov/dags/archives/records-management/GRS%202002%20-%20r...
> which means that the documents would likely only be kept for 2 years,
> a registrar not being a particularly high office, and maybe only 1,
> since the substantive information would have been incorporated into
> the certificate.
Actually, the Local Registrar's records of Birth and Death would fall
under "Medical Records," and they have an _official_ retention of
"Retention: 25 years after date of last entry."
If the record is in the form of a bound journal (like a Notary
Journal) it would depend on how big the journal is (total entries) and
the "timetable" would not "kick in" until the last journal entry blank
is filled.
There again, if the Local Registrar did not turn the journal in and,
instead, passed it/them onto his/her successor, it may still not be
"in the system" for destruction.
As with this whole issue, that is merely speculation at this point.
>>>> While releasing the certified photostatic copy of the ORIGINAL
>>>> Certificate Of Live Birth may not stop all the decension,, it surely
>>>> will not hurt.
>
>>> It wouldn't help, because the deniers will always find some new reason
>>> to doubt.
>
>> Until it actually happens, that is mere speculation.
>
> But as noted above, you share my speculation.
I want it _all_ to end.
But as long as there are nutcases on both sides (like Iarnród for the
Obama COLB Cultists and Taitz for the "Kenya Birthers"), and Obama
continues to "stone wall" the issue, it _will_ drag on!
>> That's the _very_ reason BHO-II keeps it "alive."
>
> He doesn't keep it alive. The birthers do. You've admitted above
> that merely producing another official copy won't satisfy birthers.
SOME "birthers": I believe the large majority would finally be
satisfied by the release of a certified photostatic copy of Obama's
_original_ 1961 "Certificate Of Live Birth."
> So even if Obama could request a copy to be released,...
Which the statutes themselves say he can.
> ...there will still be demands for that forensic investigation, for which
> Obama has no relevant authority.
He has the authority to authorize the release (per the statutes).
>> So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
>
> It has nothing to do with his administration.
You can "take to the bank" that members of his administration have
their "fingerprints" all over this issue.
However:
> It became irrelevant the minute he was sworn into office,...
Actually, the swearing-in ceremony only exacerbated the situation:
"New president retakes first oath of office because first one was
jumbled"
...
"Chief Justice John Roberts was ushered into the White House on
Wednesday night to re-administer the oath of office to President
Barack Obama because the original oath on Tuesday had a word out of
sequence."
...
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6222353.html
> ...which was also the moment that his administration first had any
> power to provide "transparency".
And he's "flubbed" that "transparency" many times over since.
D. Stussy
news:nbjan61i5b84vsa1j...@4ax.com...
> JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Prove it: post where the SCotUS announced the results of the 4 March
> >2011 conference.
>
>
http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
> Generally, if a case is considered at a Conference, viewers can expect
> that the disposition of a case will be announced on an Orders List
> that will be released at 10:00 a.m. the following Monday.
>
> Results were announced at 10AM Eastern today (7 Mar).
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030711zor.pdf
> 10-678 near the top of page 11, request for rehearing denied.
No mention of recusal of the two justices that effectively caused the
rehearing by failing to recuse last time.... Was the Court really that
stupid as to repeat their error?
Bob LeChevalier
>Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_ over
>it,
No one who would have voted for him cares.
>just because the "on-the-fence" voters are _tired_ of his "dodging
>the issue"
The on the fence voters are tired of all the nonproductive partisan
bullshit, of which the birther "controversy" is a major example.
The birthers have no more going for them in 2012 than they had in
2008. Those who would have been affected by the "controversy" would
have stayed away in 2008.
>and do not want "Four More Years" of the same "Obama is ILLEGAL" bu77$h!t!.
Good reason to vote against Republicans then.
>It is actually in his own best interest to bring this "to a head."
Not in the least. Every dollar spent on this issue is a dollar not
spent on something that the voters care about.
>> If his memory has been colored at all by the controversy, it cannot be
>> said that his testimony would resolve anything.
>
>Possibly; but still speculation.
The point is, that people who want to disbelieve will interpret his
testimony in a way that supports their disbelief. That isn't
speculation, just recognition of the way the birthers play the game.
>But as long as there are nutcases on both sides (like Iarnród for the
>Obama COLB Cultists and Taitz for the "Kenya Birthers"), and Obama
>continues to "stone wall" the issue, it _will_ drag on!
But it won't matter anymore.
>>> That's the _very_ reason BHO-II keeps it "alive."
>>
>> He doesn't keep it alive. The birthers do. You've admitted above
>> that merely producing another official copy won't satisfy birthers.
>
>SOME "birthers": I believe the large majority would finally be
>satisfied by the release of a certified photostatic copy of Obama's
>_original_ 1961 "Certificate Of Live Birth."
But why should Obama care? No birther will ever vote for Obama.
>>> So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
>>
>> It has nothing to do with his administration.
>
>You can "take to the bank" that members of his administration have
>their "fingerprints" all over this issue.
You've said that Obama can (in theory) request its release. No one
else in his administration can do so. So there is NOTHING that would
involve his administration, and nothing to be "transparent" about.
>> ...which was also the moment that his administration first had any
>> power to provide "transparency".
>
>And he's "flubbed" that "transparency" many times over since.
His administration is far more transparent than any prior one.
Bob LeChevalier
They don't have to say whether anyone was recused. They merely denied
the request.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 7, 3:16 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > TinyJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Was it Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital or Queens Medical
> >> Center; both have at one time claimed to be his birth hospital.
>
> > There is no reason to care.
>
> The "reason to care" is that the "confusion" bolsters the controversy
> as to the "COLB" information's authenticity.
>
> Actual written evidence is better than speculative controversy.
It does no such thing, of course. There is no controversy over the
COLB's authenticity. None at all. Both hospitals are on US soil and
therefore there is no more constitutional issue. It is over.
The COLB is necessarily taken from the original. That's precisely and
only what it is. Case is closed. It doesn't matter which hospital
(hint: We already know which hospital)
JohnJohnsn
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
>> over it,
>
> No one who would have voted for him cares.
Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
for "the other guy").
>> just because the "on-the-fence" voters are _tired_ of his "dodging
>> the issue"
>
> The on the fence voters are tired of all the nonproductive partisan
> bullshit, of which the birther "controversy" is a major example.
Kept alive by Obama's stonewalling.
> The birthers have no more going for them in 2012 than they had in
> 2008.
Actually, they'll have something they didn't have in 2008: five years
of Obama stonewalling.
> Those who would have been affected by the "controversy" would
> have stayed away in 2008.
And in 2012 they will turn out in _droves_ due to his stonewalling;
whereas if the document is released and they admit to themselves that
they were wrong all along, they probably will stay away again in 2012.
Which, in your opinion, is the best scenario given the ↑above↑?
>> and do not want "Four More Years" of the same "Obama is ILLEGAL" bu77$h!t!.
>
> Good reason to vote against Republicans then.
???
You're going to have to explain your logic on that one.
>> It is actually in his own best interest to bring this "to a head."
>
> Not in the least. Every dollar spent on this issue is a dollar not
> spent on something that the voters care about.
Don't you realize that your statement works _against_ your argument;
not "for" it?
>>> If his memory has been colored at all by the controversy,
>>> it cannot be said that his testimony would resolve anything.
>
>> Possibly; but still speculation.
>
> The point is, that people who want to disbelieve will interpret his
> testimony in a way that supports their disbelief. That isn't
> speculation, just recognition of the way the birthers play the game.
You are speculating as to the number of "true disbelievers."
>> But as long as there are nutcases on both sides (like Iarnr d for the
>> Obama COLB Cultists and Taitz for the "Kenya Birthers"), and Obama
>> continues to "stonewall" the issue, it _will_ drag on!
>
> But it won't matter anymore.
There again; speculation on your part.
>>>> That's the _very_ reason BHO-II keeps it "alive."
>
>>> He doesn't keep it alive. The birthers do. You've admitted above
>>> that merely producing another official copy won't satisfy birthers.
>
>> SOME "birthers" - I believe the large majority would finally be
>> satisfied by the release of a certified photostatic copy of Obama's
>> _original_ 1961 "Certificate Of Live Birth."
>
> But why should Obama care? No birther will ever vote for Obama.
The "birthers" who change their minds when the evidence they want to
see is released may stay home: the "birthers" who do not get the
evidence they seek will in all likelihood vote against Obama and
_motivate_ others who might have stayed home in 2012.
>>>> So much for "Obama Administration `Transparency'."
>
>>> It has nothing to do with his administration.
>
>> You can "take to the bank" that members of his administration have
>> their "fingerprints" all over this issue.
>
> You've said that Obama can (in theory) request its release.
Not "theory": FACT!
It's Obama's "Birth Record" (as described by the Hawai'i State
Department of Health) that we are discussing here, and HRS §338-18(b)
(7) allows Obama to appoint "A person or agency acting on behalf of
the registrant" (Obama) to authorize release of the birth record.
> No one else in his administration can do so.
See ↑above↑.
> So there is NOTHING that would involve his administration,...
If you _really_ believe that no one within the administration has
counseled Obama on this; well, you need to take a "Reality Pill." <g>
> ...and nothing to be "transparent" about.
>
>>> ...which was also the moment that his administration first had any
>>> power to provide "transparency".
>
>> And he's "flubbed" that "transparency" many times over since.
>
> His administration is far more transparent than any prior one.
Your opinion; not held by many.
> lojbab
> ---
> Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
> loj...@lojban.org Lojban language
> www.lojban.org
"Lojban is a carefully constructed spoken language designed in the
hope of removing a large portion of the ambiguity from human
communication. It was made well-known by a Scientific American article
and references in science fiction Lojban has been built over five
decades by dozens of workers and hundreds of supporters."
--Ibid.
Hasn't really "taken off;" has it. <g> ;)
Little known fact: the "Divine Language" used by Leeloo Minai
Lekarariba-Laminai-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat (Milla Jovovich) in "The Fifth
Element" was actually created by her and director (later hisband) Luc
Besson, and by the time the film was completed they were actually
conversing with it fluently.
Good luck with yours.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
> >> over it,
>
> > No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
> for "the other guy").
Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
Obama's popularity is far above that of Ronald Reagan at this stage in
their respective terms. Plus the economy sucked worse under Reagan,
whose personal recession (Obama inherited yet another republican
recession already underway) resulted in unemployment far in excess of
10 percent for 10 full months. Under Obama. unemployment was only at
10 percent, and that for just two months.
The economy always fares worse under Republicans.
> >> just because the "on-the-fence" voters are _tired_ of his "dodging
> >> the issue"
>
> > The on the fence voters are tired of all the nonproductive partisan
> > bullshit, of which the birther "controversy" is a major example.
>
> Kept alive by Obama's stonewalling.
Not at all. Obama in fact MADE HISTORY by being the FIRST and ONLY
presidential candidate in our history to release his birth
certificate. He is the opposite of stonewalling. He released it
whereas no other president ever did. Your eternal denial, caused by
your obvious racism, cannot erase this simple fact. Your whining makes
no sense since no president before Obama ever released any birth
certificate prior to taking office.
Iarnrod
<snip evasive kookrant>
Hey TinyJohnsn, no one failed to notice how you SNIPPED the proof that
I was correct.
SCOTUS: Fuck you, birfers, Obama proved he is a natural born citizen.
Now writhe in your racist denial, Tiny!!
Iarnrod: Correct yet again. Batting 1.000!!
D. Stussy
Read their report again: When a justice does not participate in the
decision, they say so. This one had no justices excluded - and that is the
same problem as last time....
JohnJohnsn
>
> On Mar 7, 9:14 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
>>>> over it,
>
>>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
>> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
>> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
>> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
>> for "the other guy").
>
> Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
Nope! Obama: he started with a 65.5% Approval Rating (17 Feb 2009) and
was down to 44,2% (17 Oct 2010), 44.7% (17 Dec 2010) and 47.2% (2 Mar
2011).
--President Obama Job Approval
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/
president_obama_job_approval-1044.html>
Try comparing Obama to Obama for a change.
Iarnrod
> On Mar 7, 10:46 pm, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> proved:
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:14 pm, TinyJohnsn <TopMoron1...@i'mayahoo.com> failed:> >>> TinyJohnsn <TopMoron1...@i'mayahoo.com> failed:
>
> >>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
> >>>> over it,
>
> >>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
> >> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
> >> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
> >> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
> >> for "the other guy").
>
> > Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
>
> Nope!
Well, it would seem so, TinyJohnsn. After all, Obama remains more
popular than Raygun AND unemployment never got as high and for as long
under the Bush-GOP Recession as it did under the Reagan-GOP Recession.
Simple historical FACT that of course cannot be refuted in the least.
JohnJohnsn
from Obama's failures when she blubbered:
>
> On Mar 8, 1:07 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 10:46 pm, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 7, 9:14 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
>>>>>> over it,
>
>>>>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
>>>> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
>>>> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
>>>> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
>>>> for "the other guy").
>
>>> Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
>
>> Nope!
>
> Well, it would seem so
What "seems so" is the truth that, for you, "When the facts disagree
with your fantasy, push your fantasy even harder."
So, we will repost the FACTS you "snipped" and ran away from!
Obama started with a 65.5% Approval Rating (17 Feb 2009) and was down
to 44,2% (17 Oct 2010), 44.7% (17 Dec 2010) and 47.2% (2 Mar 2011).
--President Obama Job Approval
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/
president_obama_job_approval-1044.html>
You will note that this is the very same Approval Rating source the
Left-Winger's have been pushing here in Usenet.
Don't you just hate it when your very own source comes back and bites
you in your Biker Dyke ass? <g> :D
Now, instead of trying to "move the goalposts" to cover Obama's
falling Approval Ratings, tell us again how "well" his administration
is doing NOW verses when his Approval Rating was above 65% 25 months
ago.
[Watch Iarnród the Rude Obama COLB Cult Head Cheerleader try yet
another "snip & run" goal post move]
deepdudu
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>What "seems so" is the truth that, for you, "When the facts disagree
>with your fantasy, push your fantasy even harder."
>
>So, we will repost the FACTS you "snipped" and ran away from!
>
>Obama started with a 65.5% Approval Rating (17 Feb 2009) and was down
>to 44,2% (17 Oct 2010), 44.7% (17 Dec 2010) and 47.2% (2 Mar 2011).
>--President Obama Job Approval
><http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/
>president_obama_job_approval-1044.html>
Look at what happened to Bush and Reagan's numbers too. Once again
you rightards try to make a mountain out of a molehill if it suits
your twisted agenda. Find a liberal to explain what the squiggly
lines are for:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
JohnJohnsn
Dudu" (an apt description of the U.S. condition under the Obama
You do realize that this is this Approval Tracker puts Obama in a
_worse_ light than the one I posted (which was a compilation of
multiple Approval Rating polls; including CNN/Opinion Research, CBS
News/NY Times, Pew Research, Ipsos/McClatchy, Cook/RT Strategies,
Associated Press/GfK, ABC News/Washington Post, FOX News, Rasmussen
Reports, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, USA Today/Gallup... just to name a
_few_; don't you?
Yours, while "Single Source," adds the ability to do a comparison:
_not_ good for your propaganda campaign!
When you do compare the three, you find that Bush's Approval Rating
swing (started at 57%, ended at 34%; or -23%) is quite smilar to
Obama's current Approval Rating swing (64% high/41% low; again: -23%),
since there is no "Margin of Error" shown for either.
Reagan, OTHO, started at 51% and ended with 63% (+12%)
Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) to "explain the squiggly lines"; expecially
when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
Find a Conservative to explain _those_ "squiggly lines" to you, Feces.
BTW: according to your _own_ source's "squiggly lines", at this point
in their presidencies, Bush leads Obama:63% to 46% <g>
Too bad; so sad: for your propaganda campaign. <snicker>
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant;
it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
— William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry
"If Ignorance is Bliss, then Liberalism must be Nirvana"
deepdudu
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) to "explain the squiggly lines"; expecially
>when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
The point, moron, besides being beyond your grasp, is that Obama is
doing no worse than any other President, and better than most,
especially considering the terrible economic mess he got handed to him
from your loser boy Bush.
JohnJohnsn
Dudu" (an apt description of the U.S. condition under the Obama
administration) wrote:
Translation: "Propaganda didn't work, `snip' all the evidence,, and
it's back to `Bush Bashing' again to take the focus off Obama."
Nice try: too bad we all see through your and Iarnród's creative
"editing."
ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι
Scout
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:23:33 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
> <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>> when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
>
> The point, moron, besides being beyond your grasp, is that Obama is
> doing no worse than any other President, and better than most,
> especially considering the terrible economic mess he got handed to him
> from your loser boy Bush.
Odd, at this point in his Presidency Bush was at 61% despite starting at
nearly the same level as Obama. In fact Bush's approval didn't hit Obama's
current approval until his second term, and Obama is still in his first
term.
What is noticably absent from Obama's chart however is ANY change in the
long term trend. His numbers are ONLY going down. All the others had
significant increases in the trend lines.
So what exactly should we be looking for, that Obama is basically a stuffed
shirt who is losing support because he can't do anything that make people
say he's actually doing a good job?
JohnJohnsn
>
> Deep Dudu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:23:33 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
>> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>>> when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
>
>> The point, moron, besides being beyond your grasp, is that Obama is
>> doing no worse than any other President, and better than most,
>> especially considering the terrible economic mess he got handed to him
>> from your loser boy Bush.
>
> Odd, at this point in his Presidency Bush was at 61% despite starting at
> nearly the same level as Obama. In fact Bush's approval didn't hit Obama's
> current approval until his second term, and Obama is still in his first
> term.
>
> What is noticably absent from Obama's chart however is ANY change in the
> long term trend. His numbers are ONLY going down. All the others had
> significant increases in the trend lines.
>
> So what exactly should we be looking for, that Obama is basically a stuffed
> shirt who is losing support because he can't do anything that make people
> say he's actually doing a good job?
It looks like Obama needs to keep his big mouth shut:
Top News
Federal Officers Slam Obama for Statements on Mexico Dangers
Police Magazine
March 07, 2011
Today, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA)
announced its opposition to remarks made by President Obama regarding
the role and safety of ICE Special Agents assigned to Mexico. After
his meeting with Mexico President Calderon on Thursday, President
Obama stated, "There are laws in place in Mexico that say our agents
should not be armed," and "We do not carry out law enforcement
activities inside of Mexico." President Obama also stated that the
role of ICE Agents was an "advisory" one.
FLEOA vehemently disagrees with both comments. In response to these
remarks, FLEOA National President Jon Adler stated, "With all due
respect, Mr. President, you have been tragically misinformed on both
points." Contrary to what President Obama asserted, all law
enforcement officers assigned to Mexico do perform "law enforcement
activities." This may include conducting field interviews, responding
to crime scenes, overseeing training, and participating in raids. The
fact that they don't actually handcuff suspects doesn't diminish their
role or the risks they face.
On February 15, 2011, alleged members of a Mexican cartel savagely
ambushed two ICE Special Agents assigned to Mexico, and fatally
wounded one of them. During this cowardly attack, hero ICE Special
Agent Jaime Zapata was brutally murdered, and hero ICE Special Agent
Victor Avila was shot and critically injured.
According to FLEOA President Adler, "Our heroes were targeted and
savagely attacked because of who they were-American law enforcement
officers-and not because of the activities they performed. If our
State Department is incapable of securing weapon permits for our
officers, then we shouldn't continue sending them to Mexico unarmed."
On Friday, FLEOA met with Chairman Michael McCaul's staff from the
House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. FLEOA requested that
the committee hold hearings in order to demand accountability for why
the U.S. government sends unarmed law enforcement officers into
hostile, crime-ridden foreign countries. FLEOA also respectfully
requested that Congress halt all funding that is used by U.S. agencies
to send unarmed law enforcement officers to unstable foreign
countries.
FLEOA recognizes the importance of having law enforcement officers
assigned to Mexico, and having them work closely with our Mexican
counterparts. However, FLEOA President Adler stated, "It is reckless
for our government to send any law enforcement officer to a foreign
hostile area, with a Miranda card but no means of defending
themselves. Calling our officers/agents "advisors" only serves to
undermine the heroic work they perform. It doesn't minimize the risks
they face."
FLEOA intends to honor the memory of hero Special Agent Jaime Zapata
by continuing to advocate for agent's safety abroad. FLEOA extends its
heartfelt prayers and condolences to Special Agent Zapata's family,
and wishes Special Agent Victor Avila a strong and rapid recovery.
FLEOA will honor the ultimate sacrifice made by Special Agent Zapata
during the annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial on May 13.
FLEOA is the largest nonpartisan, nonprofit professional association
exclusively representing 26,000 active and retired federal law
enforcement officers from 65 different agencies.
-30-
This just in:
Mother: "What is tomorrow?"
10-yr-old Son: "It's President's Day"
Mom: "What does that mean?"
Son: "President's Day is when Obama steps out of the White House and
if he sees his shadow, we have 2 more years of unemployment."
deepdudu
What did you expect him to do? Magically reverse 8 years of Bush
damage in a year or two? Most experts agreed it would probably take a
decade or more for our economy to fundamentally improve and only then
is we can get some manufacturing to return to America but that won't
happen when industrialists are only willing to pay slave wages.
JohnJohnsn
Dudu" (an apt description of the U.S. condition under the Obama
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:54:02 -0500, "Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>> Deep Dudu wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:23:33 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
>>> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>>>> when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
>>>
>>> The point, moron, besides being beyond your grasp, is that Obama is
>>> doing no worse than any other President, and better than most,
>>> especially considering the terrible economic mess he got handed to him
>>> from your loser boy Bush.
>>
>> Odd, at this point in his Presidency Bush was at 61% despite starting at
>> nearly the same level as Obama. In fact Bush's approval didn't hit Obama's
>> current approval until his second term, and Obama is still in his first
>> term.
>>
>> What is noticably absent from Obama's chart however is ANY change in
>> the long term trend. His numbers are ONLY going down. All the others had
>> significant increases in the trend lines.
>>
>> So what exactly should we be looking for, that Obama is basically a stuffed
>> shirt who is losing support because he can't do anything that make people
>> say he's actually doing a good job?
>
> What did you expect him to do? Magically reverse 8 years of Bush
> damage in a year or two? Most experts agreed it would probably take a
> decade or more for our economy to fundamentally improve and only then
> is we can get some manufacturing to return to America but that won't
> happen when industrialists are only willing to pay slave wages.
I don't know about your so-called "experts," but:
Gross Public Debt: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
<http://tinyurl.com/Debt-2000-2015-FY>
Federal Deficit: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
<http://tinyurl.com/Deficit-2000-2015-FY>
Interesting way the "spikes" occur _after_ George W left office and
BHO-II took over.
Oh, BTW:
"No Way Out" of Debt Trap, Gross Says: U.S. Living Standards Doomed to
Fall
By Stacy Curtin, Mar 08, 2011 09:00am EST
Yahoo Finance
Debt, debt and more mounting debt is plaguing countries around the
globe.
In this U.S., states across the country face a collective $125 billion
shortfall for fiscal 2012, while Congress is facing a budget gap
nearly 10 times that size.
PIMCO founder Bill Gross -- one of the world's largest mutual funds
managers, who focuses mostly on bonds -- has previously said that if
the United States were a corporation, no one in their right mind would
lend us money. For the last decade, we’ve been “relying on the
kindness of strangers” to help cover our debts, he tells Aaron Task in
the accompanying clip.
By “strangers” he is referring to our foreign counterparts, like China
for example. Basically, for years Americans have spent their hard-
earned dollars on less-expensive Chinese made goods. With great
gratitude, China turned around and used all those dollars to buy up
U.S. Treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets.
But now after years of reckless spending, America’s debt level is
nearing a breaking point and can no longer rely on foreign capital as
a last resort. “When a country reaches a certain debt level,
confidence in that country’s ability to repay that debt becomes
jeopardized,” says Gross, citing the work of Ken Rogoff and Carmen
Reinhart in This Time Is Different.
The Way Forward...And Your Pocketbook
The budget crisis situation unfolding - at the state and federal
government level - does not bode well for working men and women in
this country. There are really only two choices, says Gross. And,
neither favors your pocketbook:
Option #1 – Keep spending and do nothing
Option #2 – Balance our budgets by cutting entitlements
House Republicans ran and won on a platform to cut $100 billion from
the budget this year and last month managed to pass legislation that
would strip $61 billion in spending.
But for President Obama and Congressional Democrats, those cuts go way
too far at a time when the country is still struggling to recover from
the worst recession since the Great Depression. Goldman Sachs and Bill
Gross agree and have warned that cutting too much could stifle growth.
Meanwhile, neither side has gotten serious about reforming entitlement
programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for more
than a third of Uncle Sam's budget.
If the country cannot come to grips and cut back on entitlement
programs, U.S. debt will continue to grow and governments around the
world will loose faith in the U.S. dollar. Foreign goods would become
more expensive, says Gross, while our standard of living would drop.
Under the second option, if entitlement programs are cut, many
Americans would naturally have to learn to live on less and take a hit
to their standard of living.
“There is really no way out of this trap and this conundrum at this
point,” says Gross. From an investment perspective his advice is to
stay clear of “bonds in dollar denominated terms” and to be “wary of
higher interest rates going forward.”
-30-
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant;
it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
deepdudu
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I don't know about your so-called "experts," but:
>
>Gross Public Debt: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
><http://tinyurl.com/Debt-2000-2015-FY>
>
>Federal Deficit: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
><http://tinyurl.com/Deficit-2000-2015-FY>
Spikes started in 07 moron. Learn to read a graph.
>
>Interesting way the "spikes" occur _after_ George W left office and
>BHO-II took over.
Liar.
JohnJohnsn
Dudu" (an apt description of the U.S. condition under the Obama
administration) wrote:
>
> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know about your so-called "experts," but:
>
>> Gross Public Debt: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Debt-2000-2015-FY>
>
>> Federal Deficit: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
>> <http://tinyurl.com/Deficit-2000-2015-FY>
>
> Spikes started in 07 moron. Learn to read a graph.
"What a Maroon! Will ya get a load of this Maroon"
--Bugs Bunny
You need glasses, Pila Feces: the "spike" ("an unusually high and
sharply defined maximum" --M-W.com) accelerates the fastest right
after January of 2008.
If you're too cheap to get glasses, Internet Exploder 8 has a "zoom"
feature you can use to see the details. <g>
>> Interesting way the "spikes" occur _after_ George W left office and
>> BHO-II took over.
>
> Liar.
You most certainly are, Pila Feces.
>> "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant;
>> it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
>> — Ronald Wilson Reagan
>>
Iarnrod
> On Mar 8, 7:30 am, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> "snipped" and ran away
> from Obama's failures when she blubbered:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 1:07 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 7, 10:46 pm, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 7, 9:14 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
> >>>>>> over it,
>
> >>>>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
> >>>> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
> >>>> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
> >>>> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
> >>>> for "the other guy").
>
> >>> Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
>
> >> Nope!
>
> > popular than Raygun AND unemployment never got as high and for as long
> > under the Bush-GOP Recession as it did under the Reagan-GOP Recession.
> > Simple historical FACT that of course cannot be refuted in the least.
>
Well that's exactly what I said, TinyJohnsn. You were thinkin' of the
dope Reagan (the president who started the GOP war on the middle
class).
If you weren't so busy snipping my posts to hide and run from the
thorough ass-kicking I's giving you, you might have realized you were
actually agreeing with me!
<tee hee>
So stop movin' the goal posts, you wha-wha-wha-whacko kook!
Iarnrod
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 19:53:20 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
>
>
> >I don't know about your so-called "experts," but:
>
> >Gross Public Debt: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
> ><http://tinyurl.com/Debt-2000-2015-FY>
>
> >Federal Deficit: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
> ><http://tinyurl.com/Deficit-2000-2015-FY>
>
> Spikes started in 07 moron. Learn to read a graph.
You're asking too much of rightards. They can't even grok that Obama
is more popular at this stage in his presidency -- and with a lower
unemployment rate -- than the moron Reagan, whom they worship. They
worship a prez who was less popular and was actually responsible for
the bad economy he had. Their hatred of America seems boundless.
Bob LeChevalier
>>http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
>> >> Generally, if a case is considered at a Conference, viewers can expect
>> >> that the disposition of a case will be announced on an Orders List
>> >> that will be released at 10:00 a.m. the following Monday.
>> >>
>> >> Results were announced at 10AM Eastern today (7 Mar).
>> >> http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030711zor.pdf
>> >> 10-678 near the top of page 11, request for rehearing denied.
>> >
>> >No mention of recusal of the two justices that effectively caused the
>> >rehearing by failing to recuse last time.... Was the Court really that
>> >stupid as to repeat their error?
>>
>> They don't have to say whether anyone was recused. They merely denied
>> the request.
>
>Read their report again: When a justice does not participate in the
>decision, they say so. This one had no justices excluded - and that is the
>same problem as last time....
The request was denied. Thus the participation in the decision was
deemed irrelevant.
IIRC, the rules are that a case isn't even considered unless 4
justices think it is worth being considered. It doesn't matter how
many are included or excluded if they can't get to 4 among those who
are left.
But whatever the rules are, the request was denied. End of story.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
>>> over it,
>>
>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
>Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months,
His high approval rating early in his term does not reflect only those
who voted for him, which were less than 55% of the voters.
Meanwhile, those who care about the birther issue are almost entirely
Republicans
>one
>must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
>into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
>for "the other guy").
Actually, the younger demographic, which went strongly for Obama, will
have become a somewhat larger share of the electorate, displacing old
people who died off, the sector that Obama did poorest with.
Meanwhile, Hispanics, which Republicans are doing their best to piss
off, are steadily becoming a larger share of the population and the
electorate.
>>> just because the "on-the-fence" voters are _tired_ of his "dodging
>>> the issue"
>>
>> The on the fence voters are tired of all the nonproductive partisan
>> bullshit, of which the birther "controversy" is a major example.
>
>Kept alive by Obama's stonewalling.
Kept alive by birther propagandizing. Obama has no obligation to do
anything, so he is not "stonewalling" to ignore that propagandizing.
Only birthers would think otherwise.
>> The birthers have no more going for them in 2012 than they had in
>> 2008.
>
>Actually, they'll have something they didn't have in 2008: five years
>of Obama stonewalling.
They are the only ones who care.
>> Those who would have been affected by the "controversy" would
>> have stayed away in 2008.
>
>And in 2012 they will turn out in _droves_ due to his stonewalling;
Nonsense.
>whereas if the document is released and they admit to themselves that
>they were wrong all along, they probably will stay away again in 2012.
>
>Which, in your opinion, is the best scenario given the ?above??
Obama continues to ignore the time wasters and lets them continue to
waste time and money.
>>> and do not want "Four More Years" of the same "Obama is ILLEGAL" bu77$h!t!.
>>
>> Good reason to vote against Republicans then.
>
>???
>
>You're going to have to explain your logic on that one.
Only Republicans produce such bullshit. Reduce the number of
Republicans and there will be less bullshit.
>>> It is actually in his own best interest to bring this "to a head."
>>
>> Not in the least. Every dollar spent on this issue is a dollar not
>> spent on something that the voters care about.
>
>Don't you realize that your statement works _against_ your argument;
>not "for" it?
It's the birthers who are wasting their time and money. Obama is
ignoring it.
>>>> If his memory has been colored at all by the controversy,
>>>> it cannot be said that his testimony would resolve anything.
>>
>>> Possibly; but still speculation.
>>
>> The point is, that people who want to disbelieve will interpret his
>> testimony in a way that supports their disbelief. That isn't
>> speculation, just recognition of the way the birthers play the game.
>
>You are speculating as to the number of "true disbelievers."
I don't care what their number is. They are all people who wouldn't
vote for Obama anyway.
>>> But as long as there are nutcases on both sides (like Iarnr d for the
>>> Obama COLB Cultists and Taitz for the "Kenya Birthers"), and Obama
>>> continues to "stonewall" the issue, it _will_ drag on!
>>
>> But it won't matter anymore.
>
>There again; speculation on your part.
Once the 2012 election is over, it is irrelevant. He won't be facing
the voters ever again.
>>> SOME "birthers" - I believe the large majority would finally be
>>> satisfied by the release of a certified photostatic copy of Obama's
>>> _original_ 1961 "Certificate Of Live Birth."
>>
>> But why should Obama care? No birther will ever vote for Obama.
>
>The "birthers" who change their minds when the evidence they want to
>see is released may stay home: the "birthers" who do not get the
>evidence they seek will in all likelihood vote against Obama and
>_motivate_ others who might have stayed home in 2012.
"speculation on your part"
>>>> ...which was also the moment that his administration first had any
>>>> power to provide "transparency".
>>
>>> And he's "flubbed" that "transparency" many times over since.
>>
>> His administration is far more transparent than any prior one.
>
>Your opinion; not held by many.
Even the right wing Washington Times credits him with improving things
considerably, and in having good intentions to do more, and generally
adhering to the spirit if not the letter of his promises in this
arena.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/28/obamas-transparency-record-not-so-clear/
data.gov (3146 executive branch data sources in their catalog)
recovery.gov
usaspending.gov
etc
are all things that reveal lots of data that wasn't easily available
before.
>"Lojban is a carefully constructed spoken language designed in the
>hope of removing a large portion of the ambiguity from human
>communication. It was made well-known by a Scientific American article
>and references in science fiction Lojban has been built over five
>decades by dozens of workers and hundreds of supporters."
>--Ibid.
>
>Hasn't really "taken off;" has it. <g> ;)
It's doing fine. Much faster growth would exceed the capability of
the all-volunteer community to support new people. Meanwhile people
are slowly translating the formerly-only-English materials into many
other languages, while working on a major revised edition of our main
book (which these days is selling at a faster rate than ever, despite
the fact that we do no advertising beyond "word of mouth").
Bob LeChevalier
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
>
>You do realize that this is this Approval Tracker puts Obama in a
>_worse_ light than the one I posted (which was a compilation of
>multiple Approval Rating polls; including CNN/Opinion Research, CBS
>News/NY Times, Pew Research, Ipsos/McClatchy, Cook/RT Strategies,
>Associated Press/GfK, ABC News/Washington Post, FOX News, Rasmussen
>Reports, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, USA Today/Gallup... just to name a
>_few_; don't you?
>
>Yours, while "Single Source," adds the ability to do a comparison:
>_not_ good for your propaganda campaign!
>
>When you do compare the three, you find that Bush's Approval Rating
>swing (started at 57%, ended at 34%; or -23%) is quite smilar to
>Obama's current Approval Rating swing (64% high/41% low; again: -23%),
>since there is no "Margin of Error" shown for either.
You are comparing apples and oranges here, using high/low for Obama
and start/end for Bush.
high/low for Bush was 90% high, 25% low or -65%
high/low for Reagan was 68% high, 35% low or -33%
This makes Obama's high low swing of -23% look rather good
The comparison (which only goes up to last Dec) had Obama on Dec 12
2010 at 46% and Reagan on Dec 13 1982 at 41%.
>Reagan, OTHO, started at 51% and ended with 63% (+12%)
We have no idea what Obama's "ending number" will be, so all we can
compare is to the same relative time in their respective
administrations (or the high/low swing as noted above).
>Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) to "explain the squiggly lines"; expecially
>when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
Overlay Reagan and Obama, and Obama looks pretty good. Reagan's
numbers were still dropping at this comparable point, and got as low
as 35%.
>Find a Conservative to explain _those_ "squiggly lines" to you, Feces.
>
>BTW: according to your _own_ source's "squiggly lines", at this point
>in their presidencies, Bush leads Obama:63% to 46% <g>
Bush had an enormous bump from 9/11 as the graph shows. His 63% was a
greater fall from that 90% peak than Obama has had from his peak, and
Bush continued to drop for the rest of his two terms except for a very
short bump at the start of the Iraq invasion.
>Too bad; so sad: for your propaganda campaign. <snicker>
"campaign"? I just respond to what others post; I don't campaign.
Bob LeChevalier
>Obama started with a 65.5% Approval Rating (17 Feb 2009) and was down
>to 44,2% (17 Oct 2010), 44.7% (17 Dec 2010) and 47.2% (2 Mar 2011).
>--President Obama Job Approval
><http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/
>president_obama_job_approval-1044.html>
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/optimism-for-obama-should-come-with-caution/
<On the other hand, Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are slightly better
< than Mr. Clinton’s or Mr. Reagan’s were at a comparable point in
< time, being in the mid-to-high 40s rather than in the low 40s.
Meanwhile, compare with his most likely opponents:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/few-winning-scenarios-for-gingrich/
Huckabee 38% favorable
Romney 34% favorable
Gingrich 32% favorable (and very high unfavorables)
Palin 34% favorable (and very high unfavorables)
Obama is running 49-50% favorable
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests
>Now, instead of trying to "move the goalposts" to cover Obama's
>falling Approval Ratings, tell us again how "well" his administration
>is doing NOW verses when his Approval Rating was above 65% 25 months
>ago.
Every administration does poorly relative to their "honeymoon"
ratings, so the comparison is meaningless.
deepdudu
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 8, 10:44 pm, Pila Feces, posting under the Usenet ID of "Deep
>Dudu" (an apt description of the U.S. condition under the Obama
>administration) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:05:34 -0800 (PST), JohnJohnsn
>> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about your so-called "experts," but:
>>
>>> Gross Public Debt: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/Debt-2000-2015-FY>
>>
>>> Federal Deficit: US from FY 2000 to FY 2015
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/Deficit-2000-2015-FY>
>>
>> Spikes started in 07 moron. Learn to read a graph.
>
>"What a Maroon! Will ya get a load of this Maroon"
> --Bugs Bunny
>
>You need glasses, Pila Feces: the "spike" ("an unusually high and
>sharply defined maximum" --M-W.com) accelerates the fastest right
>after January of 2008.
The spike started in 07 moron. Live with it. Your lies don't change
reality.
deepdudu
The wingers are desperate to find reasons to put down Obama despite
the facts.
Iarnrod
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> and do not want "Four More Years" of the same "Obama is ILLEGAL" bu77$h!t!.
>
> >> Good reason to vote against Republicans then.
>
> >???
>
> >You're going to have to explain your logic on that one.
>
> Only Republicans produce such bullshit. Reduce the number of
> Republicans and there will be less bullshit.
You'll have to excuse TinyJohnsn. He's not very strong in the "logic"
department!
JohnJohnsn
>
> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> You do realize that this is this Approval Tracker puts Obama in a
>> _worse_ light than the one I posted (which was a compilation of
>> multiple Approval Rating polls; including CNN/Opinion Research, CBS
>> News/NY Times, Pew Research, Ipsos/McClatchy, Cook/RT Strategies,
>> Associated Press/GfK, ABC News/Washington Post, FOX News,
>> Rasmussen Reports, Newsweek, Quinnipiac, USA Today/Gallup...
>> just to name a _few_; don't you?
>
>> Yours, while "Single Source," adds the ability to do a comparison:
>> _not_ good for your propaganda campaign!
>
>> When you do compare the three, you find that Bush's Approval Rating
>> swing (started at 57%, ended at 34%; or -23%) is quite smilar to
>> Obama's current Approval Rating swing (64% high/41% low; again:
>> -23%), since there is no "Margin of Error" shown for either.
>
> You are comparing apples and oranges here, using high/low for Obama
> and start/end for Bush.
Actually, "Start/End" is appropo at this point, as it describes the
"end" of the current administration's reign through today.
As to the actual "End"ing Approval Rating for BHO-II; well, we'll see
those numbers on Monday, 21 January 2013. <g> ;)
Primarily we are discussing trends at this point.
> high/low for Bush was 90% high, 25% low or -65%
> high/low for Reagan was 68% high, 35% low or -33%
> This makes Obama's high low swing of -23% look rather good
Only when you give the 90% "bump" extra credence; which we all know it
was merely a reaction to the infamy of the al Qaeda attack of 9/11/01.
Try leaving that anomaly out when judging the overall Approval Ratings
of the three: I did.
Anyway, Reagan's Approval Ratings, despite Iarnród's rantings and
ravings, pretty much track Obama's at the same points of their
administrations: the USA Today chart bears this out; Reagan - 68% high/
Obama - 65% high; Reagan - 41% low, Obama - 41% low (taking only both
president's first 689 days into account).
> The comparison (which only goes up to last Dec) had Obama on Dec 12
> 2010 at 46% and Reagan on Dec 13 1982 at 41%.
That's why I used the Real Clear Politics chart: it is up-to-date. But
Pila Feces is the one that wants to use the USA Today poll because it
makes BHO-II look better.
As I wrote, the RCP chart is a compilation of numerous polls; ergo, a
more true picture.
>> Reagan, OTHO, started at 51% and ended with 63% (+12%)
>
> We have no idea what Obama's "ending number" will be, so all
> we can compare is to the same relative time in their respective
> administrations (or the high/low swing as noted above).
>
>> Don't need an Anonymous Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat
>> LOSER (est. 2010-11-02) to "explain the squiggly lines"; expecially
>> when they are overlaid via the Comparison tab.
>
> Overlay Reagan and Obama, and Obama looks pretty good.
As I noted above: it's Iarnród who's "blowing Obama's horn" here.
> Reagan's numbers were still dropping at this comparable point...
As are Obama's overall numbers.
> ...and got as low as 35%.
We haven't seen OBama's "low" yet. <g> ;)
>> Find a Conservative to explain _those_ "squiggly lines" to you, Feces.
>
>> BTW: according to your _own_ source's "squiggly lines", at this point
>> in their presidencies, Bush leads Obama:63% to 46% <g>
>
> Bush had an enormous bump from 9/11 as the graph shows.
My ststement above pertained only to the exact same day in their
administration and not to an average of the 25 months.
> His 63% was a greater fall from that 90% peak than Obama has had
> from his peak, and Bush continued to drop for the rest of his two terms
> except for a very short bump at the start of the Iraq invasion.
As I wrote: ignore the 90% "bump" anomaly; we don't want Obama to have
a similar "bump" (IOW: no more 9/11s!).
>> Too bad; so sad: for your propaganda campaign. <snicker>
>
> "campaign"? I just respond to what others post; I don't campaign.
Your "snippage" of the previously posted material removed the
attributions: that comment was directed to the Anonymous Lying Left-
Wing Liberal Socialist Democrat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) "Pila
Feces" (posting under the Usenet ID of "Deep Dudu;" an apt description
of the U.S. condition under the Obama administration).
Scout
What facts? His popularity has only gone down? That Bush served a full term
before his approve became as low as Obama's is now?
So tell us, what is it about his approval rating that doesn't put Obama
down, and down, and down, an even further down?
deepdudu
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> Every administration does poorly relative to their "honeymoon"
>>> ratings, so the comparison is meaningless.
>>
>> The wingers are desperate to find reasons to put down Obama despite
>> the facts.
>
>What facts? His popularity has only gone down? That Bush served a full term
>before his approve became as low as Obama's is now?
Um, again, look at the facts. Bush was handed a healthy economy and a
budget with balanced projections. Bush handed Obama a destroyed
economy, a massive deficit and two billion dollar a month unwinnable
wars.
>
>So tell us, what is it about his approval rating that doesn't put Obama
>down, and down, and down, an even further down?
>
Consider the circumstances if you can. Also consider that the 25%
hard right social conservatives wouldn't give Obama approval ratings
if he walked on water because he's too black to be Jesus. Considering
the problems the world faces to today, including the condition of our
economy and a quarter of the population hates him bitterly no matter
what, a near 50% approval rating is extremely good.
deepdudu
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<garbage snipped>
Like most conservatives, you first create your reality, then look for
misleading facts that support your bizarre contentions. Just like
Creationists deciding first that evolution can't exist then rather
than look at the entire fossil record they look for things they can
interpret as proving evolution wrong, then ignore any other facts to
the contrary as tools of the devil or evil socialists or something.
That's exactly what you are doing. You are so pathetically desperate
to find fault with Obama simply because you hate him because he is
black, and a socialist, and smarter than you, all things you hate. You
don't care about facts. You dismiss anything that does not support
your twisted idealogy and preconceived notions.
JohnJohnsn
>
> On Mar 8, 9:02 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 8, 7:30 am, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> "snipped" and
>> ran away from Obama's failures when she blubbered:
>
>>> On Mar 8, 1:07 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> On Mar 7, 10:46 pm, Iarnród <Iarnród...@ddob.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> On Mar 7, 9:14 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 8:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Obama doesn't realize that he will in all likelihood _lose_votes_
>>>>>>>> over it,
>
>>>>>>> No one who would have voted for him cares.
>
>>>>>> Actually, with his Approval Rating down 20 points is 26 months, one
>>>>>> must consider the possibility that some (many?) of those who put him
>>>>>> into office in 2008 won't be there in 2012 (even if they don't vote
>>>>>> for "the other guy").
>
>>>>> Are you talking about Ronald Reagan?
>
>>>> Nope!
>
>>> Well, it would seem so, TinyJohnsn. After all, Obama remains more
>>> popular than Raygun AND unemployment never got as high and for as long
>>> under the Bush-GOP Recession as it did under the Reagan-GOP Recession.
>>> Simple historical FACT that of course cannot be refuted in the least.
>
>> What "seems so" is the truth
[Disingenuous "snippage" here by Iarnród so she can claim "victory"]
> Well that's exactly what I said, TinyJohnsn.
No it's not, you lying train wreck.
> You were thinkin' of the dope Reagan...
He was elected Governor of California and President of the United
States; what have _you_ accomplished in life, Rude One (other than
lying to the world through Usenet)?
> ...(the president who started the GOP war on the middle class).
Alinsky's Rule #7 is applicable here, Rude One.
> If you weren't so busy snipping my posts to hide and run from the
> thorough ass-kicking I's giving you, you might have realized you
> were actually agreeing with me!
>
> <tee hee>
>
> So stop movin' the goal posts, you wha-wha-wha-whacko kook!
Why do you find it so necessary to lie so much, Rude One?
As I pointed out to Bob above, at this point in both administrations
their Approval Ratings are quite similar: Reagan high of 68% to Obama
high of 65%; Reagan low of 41% to OBama low of 41%.
Your every posting is just more evidence of your Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, as well as evidence of your Liberal Socialist
agenda:
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by
the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he
logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the
third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the
political paradise of communism."
--Saul Alinsky, `Rules for Radicals'
Moreover, you live (and die) by Saul's Rule #5 (as well as Rule #1).
Give it up, Rude ONe; your "support" is miniscule, at best:
nonexistant even better. <g>
Oh, BTW: you are the QUEEN of "goal post shifters" and "snippers," so
give it a rest.
Meanwhile:
What's more, der Führer Obama just managed to piss off 26,000+ federal
law enforcement personnel:
for our overnment to send any law enforcement officer to a foreign
hostile area, with a Miranda card but no means of defending
themselves. Calling our officers/agents "advisors" only serves to
undermine the heroic work they perform. It doesn't minimize the risks
they face."
FLEOA intends to honor the memory of hero Special Agent Jaime Zapata
by continuing to advocate for agent's safety abroad. FLEOA extends its
heartfelt prayers and condolences to Special Agent Zapata's family,
and wishes Special Agent Victor Avila a strong and rapid recovery.
FLEOA will honor the ultimate sacrifice made by Special Agent Zapata
during the annual Candlelight Vigil at the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial on May 13.
FLEOA is the largest nonpartisan, nonprofit professional association
exclusively representing 26,000 active and retired federal law
enforcement officers from 65 different agencies.
-30-
Wonder how many more "friends" Obama is going to "make" before he
leaves office on Sunday, 20 January 2013?