• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army 'showdown' at eligibility corral. Lt. Col. asks for birth cert.

Hows that legal challenge you claimed you were going to file coming along Crunch?
 
But Janice Okubo says he approved the statement... so which is it? Who is lying?

I'm not aware that she said that - you can post a link. But it sounds like she got approval for her to say it, not approval for the content of it. You do understand the difference don't you? You do know what an Attorney General's job is, don't you?

Edit - I read the article. Obviously the AG simply reviewed her statement to make sure that making this information public was legal. The AG did not provide any substance to her statement, and wouldnt' be expected to. Many public statements by government officials are routinely cleared by AGs first.
 
Last edited:
Another of your lies...... gullible Faither.

Yeah it musta been your evil twin who said this:

Tell you what Glinda..... I'll file suit against Barry if you will pay for his defense out of your own pocket..... we can draw up papers to make it binding.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Or are you all Alinsky?

Glinda stated she would pay and you chickened out.

So wheres that suit?

I find it funny you call people faithers. You have no evidence that Obama isnt elligible yet you believe hes not. Thus far all evidence shows he is even the Supreme Court decided such when their chief justice swore him in. If anything its the birthers like yourself who would rightfully be called faithers.
 
I'm not aware that she said that - you can post a link. But it sounds like she got approval for her to say it, not approval for the content of it. You do understand the difference don't you? You do know what an Attorney General's job is, don't you?

Hey gullible......... I posted the link, you just proudly didn't read it. :roll:
 
Yeah it musta been your evil twin who said this:



Glinda stated she would pay and you chickened out.

So wheres that suit?

I find it funny you call people faithers. You have no evidence that Obama isnt elligible yet you believe hes not. Thus far all evidence shows he is even the Supreme Court decided such when their chief justice swore him in. If anything its the birthers like yourself who would rightfully be called faithers.

There you go lying again....... you know damned good and well she chickened out.
 
There you go lying again....... you know damned good and well she chickened out.

Now you have to resort to empty accusations and assertions with zero evidence. No surprise.
 
I'm not aware that she said that - you can post a link. But it sounds like she got approval for her to say it, not approval for the content of it. You do understand the difference don't you? You do know what an Attorney General's job is, don't you?
Of course he doesnt. He misinterpreted what a letter said based and consistently misrepresents court cases. Just look how both him and the birther article jumped to the same wrong conclusion.
 
Of course he doesnt. He misinterpreted what a letter said based and consistently misrepresents court cases. Just look how both him and the birther article jumped to the same wrong conclusion.

Just look at how two gullible Faithers jumped to the same erroneous conclusion when reading the facts in a simple article….. See how that works? :lamo
 
Just look at how two gullible Faithers jumped to the same erroneous conclusion when reading the facts in a simple article….. See how that works? :lamo

Nobody has made erroneous conclusions except you.
 
There you go lying again....... you know damned good and well she chickened out.
No she repeatedly took you up on it and you backed out. You wouldnt file the challenge. So first you say you never said it when you did and it was proven Now you claim she chickened out..

My "contract" has been published on the Internet for the entire world to see. Here it is again, since you seem to have missed it:

I promise to pay for President Obama's legal defense in this supposed "case" that Crunchy has prepared is pretending to swears he will wants us to believe he's going to bring.

Now it's your turn to show us your "case."



All of this is absolutely, 100% correct. So why are you stalling? :doh

Anyone reading this can go to the thread and see you never followed through and chickened out.
 
No she repeatedly took you up on it and you backed out. You wouldnt file the challenge. So first you say you never said it when you did and it was proven Now you claim she chickened out..



Anyone reading this can go to the thread and see you never followed through and chickened out.

Yes.... anyone except me for calling out your lies. Anyone that reads the 2 or 3 pages of her backing out will see her chicken out.

You are true to form.
 
Says the gullible faither........

Yep, you're down to absolutely nothing. But you're going to stick with it to the bitter end, aren't you?
 
Just look at how two gullible Faithers jumped to the same erroneous conclusion when reading the facts in a simple article….. See how that works? :lamo
There were no facts in that birther article. It came to the same bad conclusion you did based on a letter you both apparently didnt read.
 
Yes says you. Despite having no evidence you claim obama isnt eligible. You and the birth failers act on faith.

No.... I have 6 Supreme Court definitions of NBC that you have not, and can not refute because in over 100 years they have never varied.

True to form (liar), and a gullible Faither.
 
Yes.... anyone except me for calling out your lies. Anyone that reads the 2 or 3 pages of her backing out will see her chicken out.

You are true to form.
Everyone who read that thread stated you chickened out. But let ask Glinda.
 
Everyone who read that thread stated you chickened out. But let ask Glinda.

Why do you lie like this when anyone can go look and see the lie? Is it pathological?

You are now on ignore…….. The one and only I have.
 
No.... I have 6 Supreme Court definitions of NBC that you have not, and can not refute because in over 100 years they have never varied.

True to form (liar), and a gullible Faither.
Incorrect you have your misinterpretation. 2 of your cases cant be found and when asked the details you couldnt answer because you copy and pasted from a birther blog. Wong Kim Ark was the only case that addressed foreign parents and stated that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen at the time of his birth. The very definition of a native born citizen. You then ignored the Mcreary case

Then there's M’Creery v. Somercille which you ignored last time I posted it. A supreme court case that stated the following:

Quote:
W. M'Creery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph M'Creery, a native of Ireland, who is still living, and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane M'Creery, and Isabella M'Creery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.
Look there, daughters of a man who was not naturalized but lived in the US were considered Native Born Citizen.

Also minor v happersett states one can only be natural born or naturalized you seem to think Wong Kim Ark was magically neither. Many cases since Wong Kim Ark have decided that those born of foreigners in the US are NBC using Wong Kim Ark as a basis. None of those cases were repealed.
 
Why do you lie like this when anyone can go look and see the lie? Is it pathological?

You are now on ignore…….. The one and only I have.
Yeah and anyone who does will see you chickened out. She promised to pay you failed to file the legal challenge. True to form you chicken out again.
 
Glad to know Navy thinks its legitimate and something to take your hat off to to have people question rather the United States killed 3,000+ of its own citizens on 9/11 to get into a war for oil. I mean, since he seems to think the only requirement for something to be legitimate is if:



Didn't realize you take your hat off to people who think 9/11 is an inside job Navy. Since birther's are just the whacked out mirror image of the whacked out truthers.

In all seriousness, simply because a large (though relatively small compared to the entire populations number) group believe something stupid does not mean it is any more credible nor legit. It strains all credibility to believe that throughout this entire political career no opponent no internal vetting would have turned this up in a way that was enough to cause a red flag, that there's some vast conspiracy going on in the state of Hawaii that dates back to the days of his birth, and on. Its idiotic, as idiotic as believing the US planned out 9/11 and took down the building with explosions to take the country to war.

OK I just threw that 100 million figure on there but lets just say there are a bunch of people who question whether Obama is a Citizen or not and I am not sure myself.......

I don't know if its true or not but I read there was already a law suit with the SCOTUS questioning it.......
 
Back
Top Bottom