RE: New "Birther" Controversy

RE: New "Birther" Controversy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LoreBook -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 9:13:58 AM)
Its interesting, don't you think, that every single "fact" presented pointing to Obama's birth certificate being questionable turns out to be a lie? And all the worry about Rubio's birth is equally irrelevant. He was born in the U.S. so he's a natural born citizen (as well as native born) just like Obama. The preceding statement represents the views and opinions of the author and the author alone, and should in no way be considered an attempt by the author to define or determine anything for anybody but herself.

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 9:31:45 AM)
quote: Its interesting, don't you think, that every single "fact" presented pointing to Obama's birth certificate being questionable turns out to be a lie? Only if you think these pathological liars are 'interesting' 8-) I frankly find these dopes who sit in here posting "Well I don't know if it's confirmed but, look at it this way...." ... pretty fucking tedious if you ask me. They should branch out and figure out there more sophisticated political rhetoric than playing the ALL TOO EASY 'devil's advocate'

Moonhead -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 10:08:44 AM)
I don't think they see it as playing the debvil's advocate, sadly. More that they're convinced somebody's a Muslim Kenyan who doesn't belong in the White House.

Lucylastic -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 10:36:08 AM)
52% of mississippi republicans think he is a muslim was in the news ether yesterday

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:04:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They came from Cuba. They are, by definition, legal immigrants. All someone from Cuba has to do is set foot on American soil and they are awarded legal residency. Not if they came in before 1959. There are some stories that say they were here in '56. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some proof of certain claims. Peace and comfort, Michael Time line cleared up quote: He insists his parents were exiles because they intended to return to Cuba permanently – and his mother returned briefly in 1961 – but could not because of Castro.

Hillwilliam -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam They came from Cuba. They are, by definition, legal immigrants. All someone from Cuba has to do is set foot on American soil and they are awarded legal residency. Not if they came in before 1959. There are some stories that say they were here in '56. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some proof of certain claims. Peace and comfort, Michael So, if they were NOT legal, that would make Rubio an "Anchor Baby" [8D]

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:14:26 AM)
quote: I don't think they see it as playing the debvil's advocate, sadly. More that they're convinced somebody's a Muslim Kenyan who doesn't belong in the White House. When even the most unknowing post something disclaiming it on the way in, it's devil's advocacy.

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:17:15 AM)
quote: Not if they came in before 1959. There are some stories that say they were here in '56. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some proof of certain claims. I rest my case

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:24:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam So, if they were NOT legal, that would make Rubio an "Anchor Baby" [8D] It would and to me, that's a little troubling. I may be on the wrong side of this. That's fine. If it turns out that I'm not; that his parents were illegal, when he was born, I don't think we should be rewarding that behavior. Part of that article I linked states that his parents had every intention of returning to Cuba. Obviously, 15 years had transpired so, they didn't come here just so their son would be born here. That's silly but, if his parents weren't legal, why should we extend ... no elevate his status to one where he could, conceivably hold the highest elected post in the land? Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:29:14 AM)
It seems to me that the best outcome possible for Rubio now is to not be tapped to be secretary of state when Romney doesn't win.

DaddySatyr -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:35:32 AM)
The best outcome would be for Sen. Rubio to release documents showing that his parents were legally here, when he was born. Short of that, the best outcome would be for Ron Paul to somehow win the election. At least I could find the stomache to vote for him as opposed to the rest of the field being offered (including the one, currently holding the job). If the president gets re-elected, it'll be four more years of hoping for change. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:39:08 AM)
If a republican is elected it will be 4 more years of assuring there will be none. And while on ifs, Paul couldn't be elected dogcatcher anywhere but in wild and whacky Texas. He is incapable of finding his own ass with two hands and a flashlight. Not even if Bruno came out and did spots for him.

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:39:47 AM)
quote: 52% of mississippi republicans think he is a muslim was in the news ether yesterday Does that mean they actually burn him with the cross? Or or will a good old fashioned dragging behind a pick-up truck compensate for that offense?

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 11:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The best outcome would be for Sen. Rubio to release documents showing that his parents were legally here, when he was born. If his parents are still alive they probably think thats a nunya no matter what. If they are dead, papers wouldn't matter to the birthers, you can photoshop anything you want and put it on the net. So far only intricate and very far-reaching plots since 1961 are possible. I doubt that anything beyond that 48 year mark would be looked at as anthing other than tinfoil by the birthers. 1956-1959 timeframes are just too far out there to contemplate scamming to make your son president of the united states.

SternSkipper -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 3:01:21 PM)
quote: If a republican is elected it will be 4 more years of assuring there will be none. And while on ifs, Paul couldn't be elected dogcatcher anywhere but in wild and whacky Texas. He is incapable of finding his own ass with two hands and a flashlight. Not even if Bruno came out and did spots for him. Can you imagine 4 years of that clown getting voted out ofv existence by his own part... With just one of his cute little quips as the only explanation offered to the American People for his policy failures.[:D]

mnottertail -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 3:05:06 PM)
He's an asshat without a hat.

DomKen -> RE: New "Birther" Controversy (3/13/2012 4:22:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr ETA: To be fair to Real, though; the Magna Carta and Federalist Papers were two of the inspirations for the Constitution. To "recognize" them for the purpose of understanding what the Constitution says, is not completely out of line. The Federalist Papers are not an inspiration for the US Constitution. They are a series of essays published as arguments in favor of ratification of the Constitution.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02