If I have to Put up with a Bazillion Trump aka neuveua Palin Threads ....

[bigrebnc1775]

A thread with no substance naturally started by a liberal.

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

 

[jgarden]

A thread with no substance naturally started by a liberal.

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh on the conservatives in this thread.

Just what does it say about our conservative "friends" who have continued to stick around for 41 pages/607 posts on a thread, they claim, has "no substance!"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh!

and post 606 tried to be funny but you failed like all liberals.

 

[Zona]

Maybe when he matches the 2 million Obama has spent on lawyers blocking the release of most of his records?

You do know he did NOT spend 2 million on blocking lawyers...he spent 2 million on post election bills and that was a small...small part of it. It wasn't to block anything, it was to find what he had to show. (need a link, oh uninformed one? do ya).

He produced it and you idiots still keep coming.

I love burfers. They are the most uninformed people out there . Go fox and go Donald. Woohoo

You have an itemized list of everything Obama spends? You sound like a partisan shrill. Let the adults talk, m'kay?

I love burfers. They are the most uninformed people out there .

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, when the lib's were questioning McCain's birth status, that was "racist" also, eh?
LMAO!

Seriously, grow the fuck up. Aspiring to be a young liberal is idiotic enough. Aspiring to be a lifelong liberal is abject stupidity on so many levels.

Trump is a "'tard"?

You continue to show your age and naive ways in every post, youngin'.

People questioning McCain's birth status were just as retarded as Trump and the birthers. At least they gave up, though, when the evidene showing that McCain could legally be President were presented.

These dumbass birthers wouldn't go away if Obama taped his BC to his head and went streaking through a White House state dinner.

Dude, knock of the retard shit. This isn't the fifties......I have an adopted special needs son. If you ever called him "retarted" in my presence, i'd slap you so hard upside your head, your ears would be playing full sets of ping-pong using your brains as the ball.

C'mon man, quit acting like a child.

Hey, Wicked Colon Jouster.........we're not calling your adopted son retarded...........

We're saying that YOU are fucking retarded, and maybe a little bit brain dead.

 

[jgarden]

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh!

and post 606 tried to be funny but you failed like all liberals.

Conservatives have never been known for their sense of humor - they're usually mad at something or somebody all the time!"

 

[Wicked Jester]

People questioning McCain's birth status were just as retarded as Trump and the birthers. At least they gave up, though, when the evidene showing that McCain could legally be President were presented.

These dumbass birthers wouldn't go away if Obama taped his BC to his head and went streaking through a White House state dinner.

Dude, knock of the retard shit. This isn't the fifties......I have an adopted special needs son. If you ever called him "retarted" in my presence, i'd slap you so hard upside your head, your ears would be playing full sets of ping-pong using your brains as the ball.

C'mon man, quit acting like a child.

Hey, Wicked Colon Jouster.........we're not calling your adopted son retarded...........

We're saying that YOU are fucking retarded, and maybe a little bit brain dead.

Hey, Gay Biker Village Person Boy.......get young lefty's lil' needledick out o' your mouth. It's hard enough to understand ya' when you're drugged out, let alone try and understand ya' when you're drugged out with a minor childs dick in your mouth.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Dude, knock of the retard shit. This isn't the fifties......I have an adopted special needs son. If you ever called him "retarted" in my presence, i'd slap you so hard upside your head, your ears would be playing full sets of ping-pong using your brains as the ball.

C'mon man, quit acting like a child.

Hey, Wicked Colon Jouster.........we're not calling your adopted son retarded...........

We're saying that YOU are fucking retarded, and maybe a little bit brain dead.

Hey, Gay Biker Village Person Boy.......get young lefty's lil' needledick out o' your mouth. It's hard enough to understand ya' when you're drugged out, let alone try and understand ya' when you're drugged out with a minor childs dick in your mouth.

Speaking of which........still blowing little boys in your "christian camps"?

I'm betting you just fondle......it's easier to say you didn't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh!

and post 606 tried to be funny but you failed like all liberals.

Conservatives have never been known for their sense of humor - they're usually mad at something or somebody all the time!

liberals don't have a sense of humor, so they are never know for having one. They were angry when Bush was presidentand they are angry with obam as president.

I recomend this

for those times when they are like this.

 

[Zona]

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh on the conservatives in this thread.

Just what does it say about our conservative "friends" who have continued to stick around for 41 pages/607 posts on a thread, they claim, has "no substance!"

 

[Wicked Jester]

Hey, Wicked Colon Jouster.........we're not calling your adopted son retarded...........

We're saying that YOU are fucking retarded, and maybe a little bit brain dead.

Hey, Gay Biker Village Person Boy.......get young lefty's lil' needledick out o' your mouth. It's hard enough to understand ya' when you're drugged out, let alone try and understand ya' when you're drugged out with a minor childs dick in your mouth.

Speaking of which........still blowing little boys in your "christian camps"?

I'm betting you just fondle......it's easier to say you didn't.

LMAO!

Naaaaaah, I prefer kickin' the shit out of old, drug infested, AIDS riddled, liberal ex-sailors (ass grabbers on boats, who volunteered to spend months on end at sea with a bunch o' sweaty dudes and no pussy in sight) such as yourself. It's like a hobby.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey, Wicked Colon Jouster.........we're not calling your adopted son retarded...........

We're saying that YOU are fucking retarded, and maybe a little bit brain dead.

Hey, Gay Biker Village Person Boy.......get young lefty's lil' needledick out o' your mouth. It's hard enough to understand ya' when you're drugged out, let alone try and understand ya' when you're drugged out with a minor childs dick in your mouth.

Speaking of which........still blowing little boys in your "christian camps"?

I'm betting you just fondle......it's easier to say you didn't.

Jester would never dream of taking your fun away from you.

 

[Liability]

Wanna stir up a lib nest?

Just make them defensive about the President.

This is why Birthers set the libs off.

They (libs) know that the COLB is not actually the same as a Birth Certificate.

They live in a fantasy land when the topic is broached.

I have almost ZERO persuasive evidence that President Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii.

On the other hand, I have almost ZERO persuasive evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

Even that mild set of statements makes the lib hive BUZZ!

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

The prosecution rests its case!

"Liability" has proven my case for more eloquently than I ever could!

Actually, Goober, you just proved what I had said.

But since you are a lib, you couldn't possibly hope to understand that.

 

[Liability]

"A thread with no substance ..." - how would a "CONSERVATIVE" know the difference?

By using your reply as an example and compare it with the OP.

Given the "Trump. I changed my mind because he has proof" has gone on for 41 pages and that "bigrebnc's" comment is post #605, I'd say that the OP is having the last laugh on the conservatives in this thread.

Just what does it say about our conservative "friends" who have continued to stick around for 41 pages/607 posts on a thread, they claim, has "no substance!"

You aren't too bright. Let me help your widdle pin head out a bit.

Saturday Night Live has fucking little "substance." Yet lots of folks watch it, especially libs.

"Substance" is not the only reason to look at something entertaining, ya goofy dipshit.

 

[Zander]

What we really need is an inexperienced junior senator with a religious mentor that hates white people and who has cozy relations with crooked land developers and domestic terrorists. That's a winning combo!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Likely, many would.

But at least the President of the United States did what some of the people asked him to do...something that would have no negative affect on him whatsoever.

To do so would be tantamount to saying "Here, is this what you want? Fine, now move on." Which, of course they would, and start a campaign for another untruth and make it appear like another skeleton in his closet. I don't think he ever intended to play their game.

If that were at all accurate then he would not have allowed his Certificate of Live Birth to become public.

Sorry...this was a game he played and it worked. The people had a valid question and asked for him to prove his citizenship. He saw how the media downplayed it and didnt care, so he opted to prodcue something and make the people look as silly as possible.

He could have just as easily produced his BC....he opted to give them half of what they asked for....enough to leave the door of suspicion open....

He did what politicians do....he played a game for political expediency at the expense of a group of people.

Did people demand for over two years that George Bush voluntarily produce a copy of his DD Form 201 which would have proven beyond a doubt that he didn't skip an entire week while serving in the TANG? No, they got over it because in the realm of all things important, it really wasn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wait?

A successful Billionaire Businessman running the largest economy in the world and not a community organizer?


Laughable.


Wait a minute!

How Does Trump repeatedly file for Bankruptcy and still stay on top? | LegalZoom

And perhaps he'll remodel The White House so it looks like this:

Trump Taj Mahal

 

[Doc Jerry]

If anything Trump is a genius. Even if he does not run, he's marketing his brand. If he's running, right now he's running unopposed. But he does have some baggage--he's said many contradictory things in the last several years, e.g. Carter was the worst prez, Bush was the worst, and now he says Obama is the worst. And, in my opinion, he'll never be elected president.

 

[MaggieMae]

Rather than engage in further discussion regarding birth certificates, I thought it may be enlightening to research the vetting process of candidates, and in particular, the most recent Democratic Presidential candidate.

Specifically, Page 18 of the national party rules states, in part:

" K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:

a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last election for the office of President and Vice President; and

b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.

2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States. "


So, how is eligibility determined? In the last Presidential election, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as Chair of the Democratic National Convention, certified that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

Interestingly, M's. Pelosi was required to certify Mr. Obama's Constitutional eligibility to election officials in Hawaii. Ironic that Nancy would have to certify to Hawaii when the birth records were available at the DOH.

As to various state applications to be placed on the respective Presidential ballot, candidates merely have to sign a document attesting to the fact that there are eligible to serve. No substantiation as to date of birth, place of birth or citizenship is required. All a candidate has to do is make a sworn statement that the information is true. Copies of the filings for Presidential candidacy are available on line. In fact, a copy of Mr. Obama's filing in the state of Illinois is available for review.

Apparently, the whole vetting process relied on the honesty and integrity of the candidates, the state party chairs, and the chair of the Democratic National Convention.

It would be enlightening to interview M's Pelosi to determine what investigation or documents she may have reviewed before issuing her sworn certification of eligibility. Perhaps this could clear up the eligibility question

That's the dumbest argument yet.

That's the dumbest argument yet.

I'm not arguing whether or not Obam is actually a citizen, I'm arguing the defects in the system which you take for granted to be entirely aboveboard and reliable. Hillary probably would've been Obama's undoing, if she really knew of any defect in his application; then again she might not have. The really important question to me, and many others I assume, is what would Obama or even Nancy Pelosi have done to insure the candidate was fully and properly qualified for the office as required in the constitution. Obvously there has been some doubt in the minds of many.

Your points:

For one thing, when are "sworn statements" considered invalid based solely on who was doing the swearing? It's taken for granted that a "sworn statement" is "swearing" to its honesty and authenticity. The POTUS makes a "sworn statement" when he takes the Oath of Office. So we should no longer believe he means it? Seriously?

We know that Nancy Pelosi is no paragon of honesty. Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi attended a briefing along with (future CIA Dir.) Rep Porter Goss. (Four people attended these briefings/two from the house and two from the senate - the so called gang of four) Goss and the briefers all say that Nancy (as witnessed by Goss) was fully briefed about Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT), and in February of 2003 she was again briefed and was told about a videotape of Abu Zubaydah being water-boarded. In 2009, for partisan reasons and to defend her newly constructed partisan position she denied she was ever informed about EIT. CIA sources said both Pelosi and Goss asked if the interrogators were doing enough to extract information. Obama’s CIA director (at the time) supported the CIA’s version of the briefings.

So yes, I challenge Pelosi’s reliability to honestly and forthrightly certify a document of such significant importance to her political party’s electoral chances by calling into question any “detail” that would reverse and undo the work of a presidential hopeful leading up to an election.

As for Obama, if he was at the point of going forward with seeking the presidency, he would’ve long ago made the decision to certify it to be accurate and a truthful representation: who but gullible liberals believes he would not do that; Isn’t it the old liberal maxim that sometimes “it’s better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission” which, of course only applies when permission would not be forthcoming, and once the deed was done there would or could be no going back.

Second, the DNC doesn't do the "vetting" of candidates for security purposes. They must pass a background check just as any other person holding high office with potential access to the highest level top secret material. The agencies are capable of finding out if you picked your nose in grammar school and stuck the booger under your desk. I know that; as an enlisted man I had a top-secret crypto-clearance while in the USMC - BUT..

..There is no vetting of elected federal officials for security purposes until after they take office. To pre-vet them would be seen as disenfranchising the electorate. As for house members and senators, they are backgrounded after election, and they are sometimes but not always kept off committees which handle sensitive classified information.

Judge Alcee Hastings, a judge serving in Florida was impeached for bribery by the U.S. House of Representatives, and removed from office. He ran for and was elected to the US House. In 2006 Nancy Pelosi announced she would place Hastings on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Her motivation was widely suspected to be her jealousy towards Jane Harmon, a fully competent, long serving, widely respected, and well informed house member serving on the committee as the ranking member. Later in the month Pelosi nominated Sylvester Reyes instead. If she hadn’t backed down, Hastings, a convicted of bribery, would have been chairman of that committee. A known bribery felon would never, as a in the private sector, or in the US military be allowed a security clearance for viewing classified information; but as a congressman, Hastings would’ve been, on a need to know basis.

As for presidents, having full confidence of the electorate, they have full access to all classified information as needed. The president himself would be denied access to cryptographic key-lists. All other information would be under the perusal and authority of the president and would be available on “need to know basis”

I ask you to do a search of US Security Codes Title-18. They are the federal security codes for classified information and extend to the physical security of high ranking public officials like the president.

Nowhere will you will find in those codes (or anywhere else) anything about vetting US presidential candidates, except that they are required to, on their own honor, swear that they are qualified.

The background check you claim comes after the election and not before it. Issues raised about McCain came from the media and political opponents.

Nancy Pelosi was the Chair of the Democratic National Convention in 2008, as such once the nomination was complete, she certified candidate Obama.

Blah blah blah. Sorry, but I don't have time to counter all your selected Pelosi dirty deeds which you've glommed onto as some sort of weird proof that Democrats are all dishonest. . I didn't realize we were talking strictly about Nancy Pelosi.

I will say, however, that Barack Obama was assigned Secret Service agents BEFORE he was inaugurated because of death threats. The SS would have vetted him then, according to Title 18, before they began protecting him because if he had turned out to be a Muslim disguised as a Christian out to establish a caliphate, the Secret Service would have been in deep doodoo for not revealing that.

 

[MaggieMae]

Liberals always tell us who they fear the most. They should fear Trump. He's an extremely viable candidate. Much more so than Obama was at this stage of the game (back in 2007). Trump has instant recognition and loads of cash. Oh did I mention he has a hit television show too?

He captured everyone's attention with the birth certificate issue- that's what a good showman does. He'll play that for as long as he can. Then he'll focus on the track record of the empty suit that currently occupies the oval office. Obama is in for a fight regardless of whom the nominee is but if Trump gets the nod, it will be a dirty, bloody fight.

^^^^^^^^

This coming from the guy who swore up and down Sharron Angle would be elected to the Senate.

You are kidding right? Seriously, this guy really thought Angle would win? What about that nut in Delaware?

Whats next, a prediction the Donald will win? Or Palin? Bachman? Come on.

I heard Charlie Cook say this morning that so far the Republican lineup resembles the bar scene in "Star Wars."