Is Barack Obama A Terrorist?

vtec350 wrote:he there's still this hanging around

Can you just give us a quick synopsis b4 we spend time to watch this video?

vtec350 wrote:The there's still this hanging around

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

OK...I watched most of it.

One question for you:

If I provided evidence to you that proved (to your satisfaction) that this film company was created by, works exclusively for & is totally funded by the RNC, Karl Rove & the "Swiftboaters" who attacked John kerry in 2004, & that they KNEW that what they allege is false,..Would that matter to you at all in terms of your believing their allegations?

Devil505 wrote:If I provided evidence to you that proved (to your satisfaction) that this film company was created by, works exclusively for & is totally funded by the RNC, Karl Rove & the "Swiftboaters" who attacked John kerry in 2004, & that they KNEW that what they allege is false,..Would that matter to you at all in terms of your believing their allegations?

Sure it would matter but depending on that source too.

But

Has Barack Hussein Obama been able to produce a Legal US birth certificate ? I'm asking this in all sincerity because I havent seen one that doesn't look like something my 5 yr. old neice made in pre school

Richard S. wrote:There's picture of it here:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gcwF ... AD93NRJE00

Thanks for posting that Richard.

Richard S. wrote:Even so, a lawsuit challenging Obama's candidacy was filed in August in a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania and is still pending.

Richard S. wrote:The litigation is real.

The filing of any civil litigation proves only one thing: That the plaintiff has $200.00 in his checking account to pay the court's filing fee.

(the filing of that lawsuit had only one purpose......A political "dirty trick" in an attempt to further distract the voter. If I worked for the Obama campaign committee, I would find someone to file a lawsuit against John McCain claiming he was the father of my 12 year old black child. The case wouldn't be resolved until after the election so, for a lousy $200.00, we would get quite a story in the news about it! )

vtec350 wrote:Sure it would matter but depending on that source too.

I appreciate your open mindedness Dave. The operative words in my challenge to you were: "To your satisfaction."




Let me just add one opinion here too:

While political dirty tricks are nothing new in politics, the extent of these tricks & their nature reveal a great deal about the candidate himself. Richard Nixon has always been considered the KING of dirty tricks & he was so corrupt that he was forced to resign the Presidency rather than face removal from office. (Barry Goldwater got him to resign)
Similarly, John McCain's 2008 political campaign is based largely on distraction, dirty tricks, "Hail Mary" passes & outright lies about his opponents. If your candidacy is so weak & bereft of merit that you have to TRICK the voters into voting for you, you deserve to lose.

Richard Nixon has always been considered the KING of dirty tricks & he was so corrupt that he was forced to resign the Presidency rather than face removal from office.

He was not forced to resign, he could have hung on Clinton style if he had no scruples about how bad it made the Country look.

To bad "the stain man" Clinton did not have as much class, no, we had to go through the impeachment process to the worlds amusement, and still never got rid of him. Not until he sold hundreds of pardons to crooks to line his own pockets.

coalmeister wrote:Richard Nixon has always been considered the KING of dirty tricks & he was so corrupt that he was forced to resign the Presidency rather than face removal from office.

He was not forced to resign, he could have hung on Clinton style if he had no scruples about how bad it made the Country look.

To bad "the stain man" Clinton did not have as much class, no, we had to go through the impeachment process to the worlds amusement, and still never got rid of him. Not until he sold hundreds of pardons to crooks to line his own pockets.

Nixon was visited by the top Republican allies he had at the time... Barry Goldwater & about 5 others. (forget their names) they told him that he had lost all his support in the Senate with the release of the "Smoking Gun" audio tape (that had him ordering the CIA to lie to the FBI to try to stop the Watergate investigation) It wasn't Nixon's scruples that made him resign....It was his allies telling him that they would vote to have him removed if the impeachment case got to the Senate. Feel free to look it up, those are the irrefutable facts involving Nixon's reasons for resignation.
While I'm no lover of Bill Clinton, his impeachment was a total partisan waste of taxpayer money & Clinton was never in danger of losing his Democratic support due to that. Clinton was not removed from office....There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Nixon would have been.

Richard S. wrote:Barack is fighting it, here's the motion: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 3/15/0.swf

So that brings up the question... Why? What kind of fool would not just produce the document?

Here's my guess as to the answer to your question Richard:

Perhaps Obama didn't want to give credence to another attempt at "distraction" from the McCain camp to deflect the discussion, once again , away from the real issues & get sidetracked in the weeds. That would be my guess.

Example: McCain managed to sidetrack Obama into going over to Iraq to review the situation by chiding him for not going there enough to get first hand info & talk to our generals on the ground.


So, against the good advise of many of Obama's advisers....He went to Iraq & talked to our generals.

How did McCain respond to Obama's trip: He accused Obama of "Grandstanding" & said that he (IMcCain) would have stayed in the U.S. & talked to Americans.....Just more tricks Richard

Dick your "guess" is absurd, but are you saying fighting the lawsuit is less of a distraction than just producing the document?

spc wrote:Are you saying fighting the lawsuit is less of a distraction than to just produce the document?

Absurd or not Stephen........If it was me...I would fight it.....Just to spite them & call them on their sleazy tactics....No doubt about it!

(I have done many "Absurd" things in my life........including burning coal to heat my home!)

spc wrote:Dick your "guess" is absurd, but are you saying fighting the lawsuit is less of a distraction than just producing the document?

He's hardly fighting it, they've filed a motion to dismiss. The linked document is a motion delaying discovery until the motion to dismiss is heard. There are extensive discovery requests (17 different categories of documents according to the motion) which would be both time consuming and expensive to produce. They're asking the judge to not have to go through the hassle for what they feel is a frivolous lawsuit.

ErikLaurence wrote:He's hardly fighting it, they've filed a motion to dismiss.

Filing a motion to dismiss is one of the first steps in fighting a lawsuit.

Filing a motion to dismiss is one of the first steps in fighting a lawsuit.

Betcha a dollar that this motion to dismiss is granted.