Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ronald Reagan's Birth Certificate

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When it comes to spinning and twisting, your tops. After all, between 8:00 pm and 2:00 am that brass pole of yours get's quite the workout and without an ounce of shame I might add.
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

    Comment


    • A copy even coated with diamonds and gold is still a copy. I never do that, never will. Ok, back to the BC quest. Please show me that you're not a crazy, exploitative cartoon character - to borrow your allies' words.

      Comment


      • It's not up to me to present any more. What's been given has been done so and upon weighing the facts minus speculation and irrelevant nuisances, your side comes up short.

        Borrowing from the blog's hysterically delivered smoke screen won't hold together what can only be described as desperate hope.

        Besides, no cartoon characters here. That's a real life dog in that pic. One that has a taste for democrats.
        This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

        Comment


        • Another twist. It's for all to see, here and elsewhere, it's always our solid evidence against your hearsay and conjectures.

          Lest you forgot, I'm a democrat of Filipino descent. We roast dogs.

          Comment


          • That's something a Filipino Republican wouldn't do. They've gained some civilized attributes in becoming one.

            Hearsay. That would be an unsigned, unofficial, prima facie something or the other green image on a web site. A statement of fact delivered by a relative who would know with nothing to gain, a tad more than hearsay.
            This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

            Comment


            • Oops! Another attack that backfired. So much for dogs.

              Ok, ok, I don't blame you for giving so much weight to clearly fabricated evidence sans beyond-reasonable-doubt ones. Here, a green image versus concocted statements, which one does the courts give credence to? At least a couple of loonies even tried with the SCOTUS. They were given time at conference level, but not a full hearing. That speaks volumes, at least many of your supposed allies think so too already.

              Comment


              • I'll help you out. Even the SCOTUS is a party to the grand conspiracy of concealing the "truth" to prevent an uprising.

                Comment


                • No help required. The truth will eventually come forward. Looking at the Supreme court. Can you say their rulings are forever perfect or sometimes a function of the needs of the nation? The later I'd say is more appropriate based on its history. Without knowing what was said during conference, speculation once again.

                  Again, all the questions and debates could be swept aside with the production of one document. Just one piece of paper. With it hidden, and its importance to the subject, the question goes unanswered. That reeks of something.
                  This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                  Comment


                  • Cases play out on merits, not on presumptions. Especially this one that in your cartoon minds touches on constitutional question. Ah, how I wish there's an Ultra Supreme Court of the US. I should have referred you over there by now.

                    Comment


                    • But wait, it would just be an ultra waste of time and taxpayer money amending the constitution and hiring ultra caliber justices. That ultra supreme body would just turn out to be yet another accomplice in the grand-scale conspiracy to hide the cartoon truth anyway.

                      Comment


                      • There is an element of presumption in every case. And, merit isn't the only premise. If it were, not once would any case ever be overturned since the given facts don't change no matter the time lapse.

                        You believe it a waste of time to answer the question given by the tax payers since it would cost those same tax payers? By who's arrogance is it that says tax payers aren't entitled when it's their money?

                        Insults being the last refuge and from these latest to those same tax payers, millions in all, it's established you believe they are nothing more than cartoon characters. Defiance, arrogance, and dehumanization all in one. How long before advocating erasure of said cartoon characters?

                        Your admitted positions are, people are only people if their values match yours and never question. The use of taxes are only permitted if they support your cause. Voices may only be heard if they agree with you. Gerbils held those same beliefs. I think I understand where you're coming from.
                        This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                        Comment


                        • Cases based on presumptions = dismissed or denied as frivolous.

                          Cases based on merits = heard and given day in court.

                          Birthers' case = based on presumptions = no merit = well? Fill in the blank!

                          Whereas my use of the phrase "waste of time and taxpayer money" was anchored on the hypothetical amendment of the constitution and hiring of ultra justices for the Ultra Supreme Court of the United States as a last resort to hear the birthers' case - pun intended apparently.

                          But you misused and abused that to mean in reference to your fringe birthers' crusade which has all the makings of "a product of a right wing spin doctor" who's very good at "partial, incomplete misquoting to take it out of context and interpret it to serve your purpose with inflammatory buzz words tossed in for affect, sorry, effect!"

                          Comment


                          • You'd make a good politician davdah. Using emotive words like "we the taxpayers" to try and add weight to your argument. You sound like the Tea Party Express. We are all taxpayers but you and your Birther buddies are taxpayers in the minority "view" (conspiracy theory) in this case.

                            Show me a criminal legal case where somebody was tried and convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence alone. I bet you can't. That's because no court in the USA will take such a case without some accompanying factual evidence.

                            No evidence offered = no case to answer
                            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                            Comment


                            • Cases based on presumptions = dismissed or denied as frivolous.
                              Survey says.....'Innocence is a presumption in criminal trials.'


                              Sorry RN. We do have a consolation prize. A years supply of Puppy Chow. Not that you would need it but that's all we had for people who aren't as smart as a 3rd grader. The good ones don't come up until the 5th grade level.


                              Brit, you never know. One day maybe I might run for something.

                              There are many cases where the evidence wasn't much beyond circumstantial and an ounce of speculation was applied to reach a guilty verdict. If not, the innocence project wouldn't exist. That and even the supreme court has reversed itself according to the change in times and personal perceptions of the country. Most notable was its view on slavery.
                              This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                              Comment


                              • One item needs clarification. A typical fringe element is referred to as such due to the number of participants being a small minority, usually less than 1%.

                                According to a CNN pole, 27% of Americans have doubts about Obama's status. One in nearly 3 Americans makes it significant.

                                The democrats state these 27% opposed to their platform are cartoon characters.

                                This propensity for arrogant dismissal of minority demands heralds from a long history of denying liberty. Going as far back as the civil war and the Republican's drive for civil rights, democrats have viciously fought against the rights of those fewer in number.

                                It's a different group and cause but the same attitude dished out by democrats. It was colored then and now it's cartoon. Not far removed in underlying opinion.
                                This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                                Comment

                                Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                                Home Page

                                Immigration Daily

                                Archives

                                Processing times

                                Immigration forms

                                Discussion board

                                Resources

                                Blogs

                                Twitter feed

                                Immigrant Nation

                                Attorney2Attorney

                                CLE Workshops

                                Immigration books

                                Advertise on ILW

                                EB-5

                                移民日报

                                About ILW.COM

                                Connect to us

                                Questions/Comments

                                SUBSCRIBE

                                Immigration Daily



                                Working...
                                X