RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President

RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (Full Version)

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

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 12:43:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 McCain was born in Panama and was eligible to run for president. None of the Right questioned his right to be president. George Romney from back in the day.

tazzygirl -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 6:18:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: And, before we even get into whether or not the Birthers are hypocrites, when did their "movement" come to the fore? summer 2008. And, it started with the PUMA's. And the Democrats quickly distanced themselves from such claims. Who was it who embraced it full force and used it as their mantra ... and still do? I know who use it, and at the end of my post, I acknowledged that they may still be hypocrites, but, for now, they are simply just wrong. I'm not a Birther. I disagree with their claims. I don't consider Obama anything other than a natural-born US citizen. Did you see where I discredited the Democrats because it started with them? Know why? Because, to me, it didn't matter. It started with the PUMA's. They were wrong. The Birther Movement took over, and they were and are still wrong. We know where it started. Its been discussed before. The woman who pushed the issue was Linda Starr.. or Linda Sue Belcher. Its quite an interesting story. http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Where-s-Linda-Starr-the-Inventor-of-the-Birfer-Story/7665-4049

DomKen -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 6:55:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No such law exists. The response you quoted addressed the subject of children born abroad [U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401]. See references at: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4406483 K. USC 8:1401 makes no mention of natural born citzen http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 So the fact remains no law defines who is and is not a natural born citizen.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 7:40:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: And, before we even get into whether or not the Birthers are hypocrites, when did their "movement" come to the fore? summer 2008. And, it started with the PUMA's. And the Democrats quickly distanced themselves from such claims. Who was it who embraced it full force and used it as their mantra ... and still do? I know who use it, and at the end of my post, I acknowledged that they may still be hypocrites, but, for now, they are simply just wrong. I'm not a Birther. I disagree with their claims. I don't consider Obama anything other than a natural-born US citizen. Did you see where I discredited the Democrats because it started with them? Know why? Because, to me, it didn't matter. It started with the PUMA's. They were wrong. The Birther Movement took over, and they were and are still wrong. We know where it started. Its been discussed before. The woman who pushed the issue was Linda Starr.. or Linda Sue Belcher. Its quite an interesting story. http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Where-s-Linda-Starr-the-Inventor-of-the-Birfer-Story/7665-4049 The thing is, though, I made no mention of the Democrat Party, but you felt compelled to defend it. Instead of agreeing with what I posted - since you have yet to make any assertion that I was incorrect on anything in that post - you had to come back with something other than what was stated. Now, I admit to my fair share of tertiary discussions, and you have to admit that I get my fair share of criticism for those tertiary discussions. You want to take this route and discuss the beginnings of the Birthers, go ahead. I had no interest in who started it, or why, just when it was started. Is it hypocritical for you to defend the Democrat Party when they were swift to distance themselves from the Obama Birther shit, yet don't defend the Tea Party for distancing themselves from the "teabagger" moniker once they found out it had an offensive - to them - connotation? Probably not. (Edited to fix a formatting error.)

Toysinbabeland -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 8:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subspaceseven And here you have it.....it all comes down to race.... why else would a group question one persons right to be President (black) and not another (white)...when after all the latter admits to being born outside the USA.... proof has been provided, and me thinks the SCOTUS would have been brought in, if anything more then a political scam was in play...but still...there are those in the states where they cut education funding still believe How can you justify that? just because the Republicans are incorrect about supporting the wrong candidate, does it automatically mean that it is about race? there is no proof that this is about race.

tazzygirl -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 11:35:43 AM)
quote: The thing is, though, I made no mention of the Democrat Party, but you felt compelled to defend it. Did you need too? quote: And, before we even get into whether or not the Birthers are hypocrites, when did their "movement" come to the fore? summer 2008. And, it started with the PUMA's. It started with a woman who worked for the Democratic party. And, yes, the Birthers are hypocrites if they endorse this man while slamming Obama repeatedly under the same conditions. quote: Is it hypocritical for you to defend the Democrat Party when they were swift to distance themselves from the Obama Birther shit, yet don't defend the Tea Party for distancing themselves from the "teabagger" moniker once they found out it had an offensive - to them - connotation? Not at all, because the Party didnt endorse the criticism. Both sides have nut cases. However, the GOP has extremely vocal leaders who are nut cases. As to the teabagger moniker... lol... they brought that upon themselves... and continue to do so to this day.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 2:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The thing is, though, I made no mention of the Democrat Party, but you felt compelled to defend it. Did you need too? Did I need to? No, which is why I didn't. It didn't matter which party started it. I didn't specify anything other than the PUMA's. It was done solely to peg the timing. quote: quote: And, before we even get into whether or not the Birthers are hypocrites, when did their "movement" come to the fore? summer 2008. And, it started with the PUMA's. It started with a woman who worked for the Democratic party. Which has no bearing whatsoever to my statements. Yet, you continued to mention it. quote: And, yes, the Birthers are hypocrites if they endorse this man while slamming Obama repeatedly under the same conditions. Which was my initial claim. quote: quote: Is it hypocritical for you to defend the Democrat Party when they were swift to distance themselves from the Obama Birther shit, yet don't defend the Tea Party for distancing themselves from the "teabagger" moniker once they found out it had an offensive - to them - connotation? Not at all, because the Party didnt endorse the criticism. Both sides have nut cases. However, the GOP has extremely vocal leaders who are nut cases. As to the teabagger moniker... lol... they brought that upon themselves... and continue to do so to this day. Really? They still call themselves "teabaggers?"

Moonhead -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 2:34:26 PM)
No, they've stopped calling themselves teabaggers and now refer to themselves as "donkey punchers".

tazzygirl -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 2:56:05 PM)
quote: Did I need to? No, which is why I didn't. It didn't matter which party started it. I didn't specify anything other than the PUMA's. It was done solely to peg the timing. And you expect no one to realize you were referring to a Democratic party splinter? The difference here is that the Democrats as a party didnt endorse this jar of nuts. We cant say the same of the GOP and the birthers. quote: Which has no bearing whatsoever to my statements. Yet, you continued to mention it. What do you think PUMA is? Who ran it? What party were they affiliated with? Slapping PUMA instead of Democrats doesnt change that fact. quote: Really? They still call themselves "teabaggers?" Groups get monikers for various reasons. Sending out tea bags to Congress earned them that one.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 3:40:52 PM)
I may have left out others who didn't win their parties' nominations as well. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And you left out George Romney whose parents were in Mexico when he was born and both were Citzens.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 6:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Did I need to? No, which is why I didn't. It didn't matter which party started it. I didn't specify anything other than the PUMA's. It was done solely to peg the timing. And you expect no one to realize you were referring to a Democratic party splinter? The difference here is that the Democrats as a party didnt endorse this jar of nuts. We cant say the same of the GOP and the birthers. quote: Which has no bearing whatsoever to my statements. Yet, you continued to mention it. What do you think PUMA is? Who ran it? What party were they affiliated with? Slapping PUMA instead of Democrats doesnt change that fact. "Slapping" PUMA?!? Stating that they were the originators in the Summer of 2008 was slapping them?!? Huh?!?!? I didn't make any derogatory claim against he PUMA's. I didn't make fun of the PUMA's for starting it. You seem to be a tad bit touchy on this one, tazzy. I don't get it. Unless you knew who the PUMA's were (I didn't), you wouldn't have known they were connected to the Dem's. quote: quote: Really? They still call themselves "teabaggers?" Groups get monikers for various reasons. Sending out tea bags to Congress earned them that one. Yeah, the cursed symbolism. Should have sent loose-leaf tea. I'm sure that wouldn't have caused an uproar. [8\|]

tazzygirl -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/21/2013 7:20:23 PM)
quote: "Slapping" PUMA?!? Stating that they were the originators in the Summer of 2008 was slapping them?!? Huh?!?!? I didn't make any derogatory claim against he PUMA's. I didn't make fun of the PUMA's for starting it. You seem to be a tad bit touchy on this one, tazzy. I don't get it. Unless you knew who the PUMA's were (I didn't), you wouldn't have known they were connected to the Dem's. I knew who the PUMA's were. Why didnt you? I knew who Linda Starr was. You didnt? I knew it came from Clinton's camp. That was news to you? Btw, the " Slapping PUMA instead of Democrats doesnt change that fact." Wasnt a complete thought. I blame that on Lilly being in heat again and driving me up the wall. I meant slapping the blame on PUMA instead of the Democrats... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action When Hillary lost, they insisted Obama was given the nod instead of earning it. They were Hillary supporters more than Dem supporters. When Hillary backed Obama with her own support, then they turned against Hillary. quote: Yeah, the cursed symbolism. Should have sent loose-leaf tea. I'm sure that wouldn't have caused an uproar. Tea strainers would have had a better ring. Sorry, I still cant believe NO ONE in the movement knew what a teabagging was.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/22/2013 4:39:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: "Slapping" PUMA?!? Stating that they were the originators in the Summer of 2008 was slapping them?!? Huh?!?!? I didn't make any derogatory claim against he PUMA's. I didn't make fun of the PUMA's for starting it. You seem to be a tad bit touchy on this one, tazzy. I don't get it. Unless you knew who the PUMA's were (I didn't), you wouldn't have known they were connected to the Dem's. I knew who the PUMA's were. Why didnt you? I knew who Linda Starr was. You didnt? I knew it came from Clinton's camp. That was news to you? Btw, the " Slapping PUMA instead of Democrats doesnt change that fact." Wasnt a complete thought. I blame that on Lilly being in heat again and driving me up the wall. I meant slapping the blame on PUMA instead of the Democrats... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action When Hillary lost, they insisted Obama was given the nod instead of earning it. They were Hillary supporters more than Dem supporters. When Hillary backed Obama with her own support, then they turned against Hillary. No, I didn't know who the PUMA's were. I didn't know, until I was looking up when the "birther" stuff was started. The first I heard about it was on Conservative talk radio, and there was no mention of the PUMA's or anything. And, the only reason I looked up when it started, was so that I could put out a link to where I got my info. quote: quote: Yeah, the cursed symbolism. Should have sent loose-leaf tea. I'm sure that wouldn't have caused an uproar. Tea strainers would have had a better ring. Sorry, I still cant believe NO ONE in the movement knew what a teabagging was. I very easily can believe that the people at the fore of the movement didn't know the sexual meaning of teabagging. I hadn't heard of it until the mocking began. Tea strainers, though? seriously? I once got a tea strainer as a gift (it was one of the ball types, if there are any other types, I don't know). Re-gifted it a few years later, still unopened. I don't even know if I know anyone who uses a tea strainer, and I couldn't even tell you if the local megamarts sell them. Yeah, sending tea strainers to Congress would have worked out great. [8\|]

JeffBC -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/22/2013 7:29:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I very easily can believe that the people at the fore of the movement didn't know the sexual meaning of teabagging. I hadn't heard of it until the mocking began. I still don't know what it is and I'd never heard that connection for the mocking right up until this post. Honestly I have about as much patience for people saying "Tea Baggers" as I do "Obamacare". If people wish to hurl pejoratives rather than talk in facts then they are clearly indicating the door they are coming out of and whatever their stance it's a certainty that it will result in harm rather than good.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Ohhh Noooo seems the GOP is supporting a Candian for President (3/22/2013 8:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I very easily can believe that the people at the fore of the movement didn't know the sexual meaning of teabagging. I hadn't heard of it until the mocking began. I still don't know what it is and I'd never heard that connection for the mocking right up until this post. Honestly I have about as much patience for people saying "Tea Baggers" as I do "Obamacare". If people wish to hurl pejoratives rather than talk in facts then they are clearly indicating the door they are coming out of and whatever their stance it's a certainty that it will result in harm rather than good. But, Incumbent Candidate Obama stated he liked that it was called Obamacare. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875