Military doesn't back ObamaFollow

Agreed. How many more times do they have to decide birthers are full of shit?

Seriously, give me a number. 5 more times? Would 5 more times be acceptable? Because it certainly seems like "until he's proven inelligable" is really the answer to that question & since that's never going to happen, it seems like some sort of "birther" related tort reform is the only way these frivilous lawsuits are going to stop.

The court did decide. Back in December.

So we're good now, right? We can drop this idiocy?

If you haven't yet read the Salon article about Birther Standard Bearer Orly Taitz, I highly recommend it for the lulz.

That's more scary than lulzworthy! The sad thing is, I think I might know some people who are like this about certain things (religion, JFK assassination theories, aliens).

I didn't hear "stole the election," I heard "Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote."

Which was, y'know, true.

Granted, back before 2000 I wasn't much into politics and didn't watch the news.

jft's comment is very wrong. As a person with family on active duty over in Iraq, I find that tactless. I don't think this is a typical liberal view, however. A more accurate comment would be that war attracts certain types of individuals. Some, like my family members, joined for the benefits and because of a history of service. Others joined because they had no other prospects. However, I'd be lying if I didn't know some who joined just because they'd have the chance to shoot people. Saying the military consists solely of those types is totally wrong; saying that more violent folks are attracted to the military than other jobs would probably be accurate.

And that's to say nothing of the issues people have after being in combat and coming home.

Loose?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

There's that stellar private school education shining through once again.

Have you figured out the the whole "12 a.m." and "12 p.m." thing yet?

You also spelled my name wrong.

Paula,



And i've evolved beyond that.

Ah, you use 24-hour time too? Good boy.

The court decided that since Obama had not taken any action as President, no one could yet show harm as a result of him being president, and thus the plaintiff did not have standing to bring a case. That's not the same as saying the claim isn't valid. Until Obama took office, no case on this issue had standing, so in Joph's own words "they don't count".

There has not been a single ruling by any court as to whether or not Obama has shown sufficient proof of natural born citizenship status to meet the constitutional qualification to be President. And all the dancing around the issue does not change that fact. Those claiming he must do so have had cases dismissed for various other reasons, but those saying he does not need to, or he already has, have not won any cases either. The issue has not been decided.


Oh. And there have been and are at the moment proposed bills to define a legal process for doing this. I don't have to push for it. How many of you on the Left would support such a thing? After all, it's pretty much the Dems who keep blocking such legislation (and are doing so now). If this is the right solution, why is it being opposed?