The birther thread to end all birther threads

this is incoherant babble.

 

Sometime wackjob is an accurate label, not a slur.

Because, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

 

I can't speak for Rahl, but sometimes I just get tired of answering the same innuendo, speculation and lies over and over, politely. Meanwhile, note this display of Birther politeness- this to public officials who had the temerity to vote against their demands:

As state election officials yesterday rejected California lawyer Orly Taitz's argument to keep President Obama's name off the New Hampshire presidential ballot, supporters lining the hearing room in the Legislative Office Building cried out in protest.

"Traitors!" shouted one woman. "Spineless traitors!"

"Saying a treasonous liar can go on our ballot?" yelled State Rep. Harry Accornero, a Republican from Laconia. "You're going to have to face the citizens of Laconia. You better wear a mask.

For the last three years, Birthers have used and abused the issue of eligiblity in an attempt to smear Barack Obama. Yet their actual complete disinterest in eligibility is demonstrated by their absolute lack of interest in the eligibility of any Republican candidate. Which should be odd, since Rick Perry comes from a state with an actual reputation for birth certificate fraud, and with easy access to the border- and Rick Perry even laughed off that he had never shown anyone his birth certificate.

These same Birthers were two years ago stomping their feet and saying that candidates were required to show their birth certificates by the Constitution. But now do they care whether Mitt or Michelle or Herman show their birth certificate- or whether it has a hospital on it, or a raised seal or 'layers'? Nope- they don't care one bit.

Yes, the true die-hard full Birthers are mostly whackjobs, with a smattering of con-men, forgers and flim flam men out to make a buck off of easy marks making up the rest.

After three years of hearing the same old Birther slander, innuendo and lies- thats my opinion.

 

Or really? LoL, I remember JEFF nearly having conniption every time someone calls Obama a Messiah, a schmuck, an Anointed One, a community agitator... have to admit, he's used it by now

 

I pick my battles now- and try to address only the more obvious Birther lies.

 

yes, really.

There is a difference between accurate labels and simple slurs. That was my point.

 

and speak for evrybody...

i think it's intellectually cheating to say that it's a dead issue. here is google from the last 24 hours. orly has had 8000 reviews of her showing in new hampshire, and the concord monitor website crashed after drudge posted a link. the whole thing is under investigation with results expected in january. the new republic just stated that the controversy is alive and well.

so if you are willing to boldly lie about that, what else are you willing to fabricate.??

 

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=0&...osb&fp=86ad24adf20b896f&biw=1434&bih=641&bs=1

 

And so do I, so do I... so, JEFF

Was Obama born Kenyan citizen?
Was Obama born dual citizen, and remained dual citizen till age 21 at least?
Was Obama born with dual allegiance, and remained having dual allegiance till age 21 at least?

 

1- There was no Kenya when he was born.
2- Irrelevent to his elligibility.
3- Irrelevent for his elligibility.

 

No.

That depends on whether or not you believe a foreign nation can involuntarily force its citizenship on people born overseas. And that question and then we'll be able to answer this one.

No.

 

because birthers have been repeatedly proven wrong over and over and over again. in the face of all the evidence provided, they cling to their idiotic theories. what else should they be called if not for whackjobs?

 

Still dodging my questions eh? I will quote Wong since I don't feel like looking up my own posts that you are dodging:

"First Dutch insists that no foreign nation can involuntarily impose their citizenship, which (if true) would mean that the answers to all his questions are, "No."

Then Dutch insists that, never mind, foreign nation can involuntarily impose their citizenship after all, which (if true) would mean that the answers to all his questions are, "Yes."

It's nothing more than an opportunity to expose Dutch's confused and hypocritical thought processes, since it ultimately has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility at all. Dual citizens are fully eligible for the presidency as long as one of their citizenship is natural born US.

So come on Dutch, show some spine and make up your mind. Which is it?

Can foreign nations involuntarily impose their citizenship or not? Don't be afraid. Pick an answer. You will look no worse than you already do."

 

What have I lied about Wash? Tell me what have I lied about?

Tell me about what investigation Wash...

I say the American people- which means the vast majority of American people either are unaware of Birthers or don't care. You claim to speak for everybody everytime(as you have claimed since April) that the Birther nonsense is becoming a hotter and hotter issue, yet you are annoyed when I claim to speak for the majority of Americans?

We are both expressing our opinions. Just mine is based on reality.

 

I have some news for you JEFF, and the news are...:

Obama was born Kenyan citizen, and remained kenyan citizen till at least age 21
Obama was born dual national, and remained dual national till at least age 21
Obama was born with dual allegiance, and he held dual allegiance till he was at least the age 21.

How do you like them news?

 

Wrong.
Who cares?
And Wrong.

 

Still dodging my questions eh? I will quote Wong since I don't feel like looking up my own posts that you are dodging:

"First Dutch insists that no foreign nation can involuntarily impose their citizenship, which (if true) would mean that the answers to all his questions are, "No."

Then Dutch insists that, never mind, foreign nation can involuntarily impose their citizenship after all, which (if true) would mean that the answers to all his questions are, "Yes."

It's nothing more than an opportunity to expose Dutch's confused and hypocritical thought processes, since it ultimately has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility at all. Dual citizens are fully eligible for the presidency as long as one of their citizenship is natural born US.

So come on Dutch, show some spine and make up your mind. Which is it?

Can foreign nations involuntarily impose their citizenship or not? Don't be afraid. Pick an answer. You will look no worse than you already do."

 

You're full of it, JEFF. And boring to no end. I've already answered your stupid question number of times; if you think this time an answer will be different, you're wong.

No, foreign nations cannot unilaterally impose their citizenship, other then on newborns. What they can do is to award honorary citizenship, which is not the same as regular citizenship.

Next question you needs to be clarified?

 

Wrong? The US State department is wrong? You're so boring, wong Here's the quotation and the link:

"However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries"

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

 

Great- thanks for finally answering the question.

You are wrong of course- and you have yet to offer a single citation or piece of evidence to support your opinion, while I have shown for example that Iran will impose citizenship on the wife of a husband who becomes a Iranian citizen.

Which of course is an example of a country imposing citizenship unilaterally on an adult. Which means your whole assertion that countries can't do that is proven wrong.

Which leads to the inevitable conclusion Birthers refuse to acknowledge- that the definition of NBC you are trying to ram down American's throats would let any tinpot dictator veto American Presidential candidats.

Thanks for playing.

 

Lies.thanks for proving you are in denial.

 

Note the context of the comment. It is meaningful only in the context of a dual citizen traveling in one of the countries of his citizenship. that country can impose on that citizen the obligations of citizenship such as military service or taxation. And travel to that country is a matter of choosing to make oneself subject to those obligations.

A person not in that country can ignore the other nation's laws completely.

Allegiance is a matter of choice. Even dual nationals (especially those who received their foreign citizenship involuntarily) do not have dual allegiances unless they choose to.

 

Ah...the difference between your claim and his?

His is backed up by actual evidence- the official statements of the State of Hawaii.

Now I know that is not considered evidence by Konspiracy enthusiasts, who prefer Youtube 'experts' and documents produced by convicted forgers, but for everyone else in the world...official government statements are actual evidence.