The Odd Blog

And when our cubs grow / We'll show you what war is good for

Le stupid! Il brûle!

Posted by That Other Mike on 25/01/2009

So, a few posts back, I spanked someone going by the name of Interested Bystander regarding his conspicuous display of teh stupid about Obama’s citizenship on a conspiracy nut blog called James4America. You can read my snark over here. It are teh funneez.

Well, it seems that IB returned in the meantime, not having satisfied his urge to be bent over and have his bottom reddened, and spewed a whole new deluge of nonsense in response. Apparently, he thought I was just too, too beastly to him, and decided to climb on his high horse attempt to take the moral high ground, by refusing to come over here and play. I, of course, having no self-control when it comes to nom-ing on the tiny living brains of wingnuts, just had to dip in again and give him another dose of the public humiliation he so strongly desires, the naughty little boy.

It’s good to see that I have become the reason to post a thread on a blog. Kind of shows that I have some legitimate points.

Meh, not really. If you check my back catalogue, you’ll see that I’ve made fun of various stupid people on many occasions, so you’ll have to get validation for your numbskull opinions elsewhere.

I will not coddle to you Mike, I will not post on your worthless, ill informed blog, but I will respond here:
The first thing I will comment on is you wanting to call names. Seems to me that this only lessens the affect of your answers Mike, you know, like you don’t have an argument, so you try to intimidate with name calling. It also speaks volumes of your maturity Mike.

Ah, see, this is where your lack of critical thinking skills once again comes to the fore; I made valid points while calling you names. An insulting manner in no way affects the facts, and by the way, you seem to have a nice line in hypocrisy going: following “your worthless, ill informed [sic] blog” with “you don’t have an argument, so you try to intimidate with name calling” is just a touch hypocritical, doncha think?

You see Mike; I did not once state that Obama wasn’t eligible, only that he has not proven to me, and many others that he is eligible. It’s rather simple to do Mike, just have Obama release the documents.

No, you didn’t outright state it, that’s true; then again, you’re not exactly difficult to read. And again, the relevant documents have been released; his birth certificate has been released and examined by numerous people. The fact that you find it insufficient has no bearing on it, because, well, your opinion is based on speculation and the rumblings of your bloated gut.

The first issue you try to call me on is what a civilian is. You link this:
“1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
2. A person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity.
3. A specialist in Roman or civil law.”
Where in here does it say that military folks aren’t civilians Mike, care to point that out to me?

Sure, but before I go into that, can I recommend Hooked on Phonics? Because you seem to have some reading issues.

Do you see the part which says:

A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military

That definition, the one which is commonly used by just about every person in the world except you, it seems, is fairly simple; it contrasts and shows non-military life in opposition to military life, it explicitly defines, as do the vast majority of English speakers, the term civilian as non-military. If you have some extra-special, non-standard definition of civilian, you’re welcome to promulgate it as widely as you wish; we don’t have an Academie anglaise, which means that usage is the final arbiter. In other words, while you may have some definition of civilian contrary to the usual pinging about inside your undersized cranium, the majority rules. To put it succinctly, you lose.

Everyone is a civilian Mike, like it or not. Just because someone doesn’t wear a uniform doesn’t mean they aren’t military Mike, just ask those who were in Vietnam, or Iraq and Afghanistan, and just because someone wears a uniform doesn’t keep them from being a civilian.

Because, you know, here we run into usual definitions again. To wit:

As a noun the military usually refers generally to a country’s armed forces or sometimes, more specifically, to the senior officers who command them.

and

of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces […] from civilian to military life.

and

Having to do with armed forces such as the army, Marine Corps, navy and air force.

You know, I really wish I didn’t have to call you a big stupid doodyhead, but apparently you love the title.

This may be an unfamiliar concept to you, but you’re going to have to face the facts and admit that according to context, common usage and especially according to usage in law (which has the most bearing on JAMES’s initial misguided post regarding the Bill about the citizenship of children born on military bases abroad), the term military refers to the Armed Forces and civilian means not military, meaning that your red herrings and bunny trails are full of fail.

The next issue was the birth announcement. You reference this from the Honolulu Advertiser:
“IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.”

And this from the Star Bulletin:
“Each Sunday, the Star-Bulletin publishes Oahu vital statistics for marriage licenses and birth certificates filed with the state Department of Health’s Vital Statistics System.”

Here’s the problem Mike, these are the guidelines now Mike, not the ones from 1961 when Obama was actually born. These guidelines mean nothing to me Mike, find the ones from 1961 and then you might have an argument. This means nothing, absolutely nothing.

If you look at this, you’ll see that the announcements are headed Health Bureau Statistics. I don’t know what the rules are in the State of Denial you live in, but most of them take exception to their names being bandied about by unauthorised persons.

Furthermore, you’re showing your ignorance again; the burden of evidence is upon you. I’ve supplied evidence, in the form of the rules that these two papers operate under; your role, at this point, is to supply counter evidence, rather than rank speculation. Point, then counterpoint. If your counterpoint consists only of “Yeah, but, no, but…”, I don’t feel any compunction in dismissing it summarily.

Furthermore, even the PUMAs seem to be slowly getting the point, and they’re a much whackier bunch than you.

Then you reference this from a Hawaiian Official saying that Obama was born in Hawaii:
[snip]
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

Can you please point out the line that says that he verified Obama was born in Hawaii? I might be blind, but I can not see it in this statement.

I see where it says that he has verified that there is a Birth Certificate on file, but not where he says that the on file Birth Certificate states Obama was born in Hawaii.

My wife was right; you really don’t (or can’t) read all the words. Did you happen across the follow-up link here? You know, the one where a Hawaii State Official confirms that the original birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii?

Maybe you didn’t link the right statement, because I have seen this statement and it definitely DOES NOT state Obama was born in Hawaii.

Or maybe you’re a dumbass.

Then you reference some article that states this:
“Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

This is the closest you come to proving your point Mike, but here’s my problem with this so called statement;
Where’s the “telephone interview” or “email”?
All you have here is a quote from someone that is in an article that we all know could have been an answer to any question the reporter asked. Let me hear the tape, or see the email Mike.

Oh, wait, round and round we go. This is a fun merry-go-round, isn’t it? Look at the pretty colours and flashing lights!

Again, I will state, this is the closest anyone has come to prove that a Hawaiian Official verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii. I will give it some weight, but until I see the email, or hear the telephone interview to hear exactly what this spokeswoman says, only some weight is all this merits. It is not conclusive proof. How hard would it have been for the author of this story to post the actual phone call, and email? Not very hard would be my assumption. Why didn’t he post these things Mike?

Because he’s not beholden to the whim of every nutbar that comes along?

The Statement above by Dr. Fukino, is still the statement I will go by.

The one which says they have his original birth certificate, which is pretty damned weighty? Cool, you seem to be coming around.

Well you see Mike, being public school educated; I would say that evidence is proof in people’s mind, one way or the other.

That doesn’t even make sense as a statement. Evidence is evidence, people’s minds notwithstanding.

You want to play games here, and it shows just how desperate you are Mike.

No game playing here, son; in fact, you’re the one doing all the ducking and diving, while still being beaten about the head at every stroke. As to desperate… Well, no. I’m not a U.S. citizen (unlike Obama, for example); I have no dog in this fight.

I care Mike; Obama did live in Indonesia for 5 years right? Obama would have had to adhere to Indonesian laws, would you not agree Mike? Or maybe you don’t agree, because Indonesian law in 1961 stated that Obama could not have been a citizen of Indonesia and have duel citizenship with ANY country.

Uh-huh… And since when did Indonesian law take precedence over U.S. law in dealing with U.S. citizenship questions? I must have missed that. Here; take a look in the section of the US Code dealing with Aliens and Nationality. See if you can find the part which says that foreign law has jurisdiction over the citizenship of U.S. citizens.

So, in my opinion,

Your gut rumbling again?

Obama was an Indonesian citizen when Lolo enrolled him in school as an Indonesian citizen, Mike, and in the law of the country that he lived Mike, Obama was no longer a United States citizen.

Except that Indonesian law doesn’t govern U.S. citizens’ nationality.

This whole law that you reference is pretty quirky anyway Mike. The law says this:
“A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: (a) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state, either upon his own application or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States”

This kind of contradicts itself doesn’t it? It says:
“or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person”
And then it says this:
“Provided, however, That nationality not be lost as the result of the naturalization of a parent unless and until the child shall have attained the age of twenty-three years without acquiring permanent residence in the United States”

This confuses me, you know me not being a lawyer and all, I don’t understand this gobbly gook.

And yet you still feel qualified to comment, despite your proudly professed lack of understanding.

So what I take this as saying is that Obama would have been an Indonesian citizen until he returned to the US in 1971, when he acquired permanent residence in the United States. If this is the case, then Obama would have to be a “naturalized citizen” and no longer a “natural born citizen”.

You take it wrong. And besides, he never lost his natural-born citizenship. Having dual citizenship doesn’t mean someone isn’t a natural-born citizen.

Big difference between “naturalized” and “natural born” Mike.

Except that it wouldn’t make him a naturalised citizen, because he didn’t lose his U.S. citizenship to begin with, making you wrong, yet again. Are you tired of being spanked over this yet?

But again, I would contend that IF Lolo adopted Obama, which it seems he did, Obama would no longer be a “natural born” citizen. This disqualifies him from being President Mike. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

Where’s your evidence for an adoption? And more to the point, adoption and possible subsequent dual citizenship do not make someone no longer a natural-born citizen; I refer you to Perkins v. Elg, which affirms the right of U.S. citizens born to foreign parent (cf. United States v. Wong Kim Ark) to affirm their United States citizenship upon reaching adulthood. Interestingly, the majority opinion on the case also affirms the previous opinion of an Attorney General that citizens in this kind of situation are indeed eligible to return to the United States and seek election to the Presidency, and also that expatriation by a parent does not affect the rights of a citizen such as Barack Obama to affirm said citizenship. In other words, bend over, sonny.

have a problem with your “I imagine” Mike. What kind of evidence is that? It is proof of NOTHING Mike. And I didn’t even refer to anything; you assume that I was referring to a “ban” which there never was Mike. But I do know this Mike, Pakistan was under Martial Law in 1981, and from the article you posted it states that you could have a long wait getting in to the country, so again Mike I’ll ask, where’s your proof Obama used a US passport to travel to Pakistan?

Still not getting the idea of burden of evidence? The current situation is that a) evidence exists to suggest that travel into Pakistan was not that difficult in 1981, and b) that there is no evidence to suggest the use of anything but a U.S. passport.

Oh I’m sorry, you “imagine”. That may be good enough for you Mike, but to me this is nothing. A big nothing too.

I wouldn’t recommend that you continue trying to use sarcasm; you’re not very good at it.

Then you answer my scholarship and grant question with this:
“Not unless they routinely hand them out to US citizens.”
Great evidence Mike, just spectacular proof that Obama didn’t receive scholarships or grants designated for foreign students.

You asked a dumb question, I answered with the fullness it deserved. Unless you have some kind of evidence that he received foreign student aid, which, again, is unlikely because, you know, it’s for foreign students, and he wasn’t one, I suggest you take this phrase to heart.

Have you thought about being a lawyer Mike? You might find one person that would trust you to represent them, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

*snort* So, let me get this straight… I have evidence and logic on my side, while you have rank speculation and the rumblings and squeakings hiding behind your middle-aged spread, and I’m the untrustworthy one? Hehehehe… You’re not very smart, are you?

Then when I asked about Obama Sr’s race on the Certification of Live Birth, you state this:
“Because that is the answer he gave. Hawaii asks what race they self-identify as, and uses that. From FactCheck.org:”
Then you reference Factcheck, like that’s a reliable source Mike. That would stand up in a court of law Mike, “Because that is the answer he gave.”

facepalmbq8dj7Do I have to do this by the numbers, I mean, really?

FactCheck.org is a reliable source – they have citations and evidence. You know, the stuff that people like you don’t have. Furthermore, they can produce evidence; again, unlike you.

Also – the comment about “[b]ecause that is the answer he gave” is pretty weak, given that the Hawaii DoH said that their standard is to put down what the parent states, whatever your gas may be telling you differently.

That kind of sounds like, “because I said so”. It doesn’t make it true Mike; I’d like to see what Obama’s “original” Birth Certificate has on it. There are plenty of white “Africans” also Mike, ever been to South Africa? “African” is not a race Mike, it’s a nationality, and even for this public school educated person, I know the difference.

Is there an optician in your State? Because you seem to have difficulty reading what’s actually on the page. If the Hawaii DoH asks what the father’s race is, and he replies “African”, then “African” will be put onto the birth certificate. The factual accuracy of whether “African” is a race isn’t what’s in dispute here; the point is that the procedure used by the Hawaiian DoH is to accept the parents’ word on what their own ethnicity is. Jesus wept. I can’t believe I’m actually having to explain this.

I’m going to continue with the beating Mike,

In which case, you will continue to be spanked every time you set your admittedly-ignorant fingers to the keys.

1. Born in Hawaii, although I will give you credit for the article where the Hawaiian spokesperson says “That’s what he’s saying”, I hadn’t seen that before, but still not conclusive proof, because I do not trust reporters, and the email and interview could have easily been posted with the article.

Yeah… Why do I get the feeling that nothing will ever be good enough? Oh, wait, I know why: because you don’t want Obama to be President, and have already set your mind on his being ineligible, whatever the evidence to the contrary.

2. That Obama was not adopted by Lolo. The laws you reference does not state that Obama would retain “natural born” citizenship, only that he would not lose his “naturalized” citizenship.

Actually, you need to provide some evidence that he was adopted; in the absence of any evidence to show that he was adopted, the sane and sensible thing (I’ve provided linked definitions, because you seem unfamiliar with these concepts) is to provisionally hold that he wasn’t adopted. Also, given that law and the SCOTUS have definitively said that dual citizenship is no barrier to the Presidency, and that at no point would Obama have lost his natural-born citizenship, you’re still on a hiding to nothing.

3. That Obama used a US passport when he traveled to Pakistan. Your “I imagine” just does not cut it with me.

And your burblings and wailing, which are based on precisely nothing whatsoever, don’t cut it with anyone at all.

4. That Obama didn’t receive scholarships or grants designated for foreign students. On this subject you offer NOTHING.

Actually, what you’re offering is nothing. You once again have the presumption of evidence the wrong way around; you’re the one saying that he got aid intended for foreign students, so you’re the one who has to pony up. Set to it, sonny.

So Mike, you want to try again?

I will continue to take the cane from the cupboard and give you a damned good thrashing anytime that you require it, if that’s what you mean.

And Mike, this time try it without the labels, and name calling.

They’re so much fun that I just can’t help myself, so I think I’ll just give in to the temptation.

I am not a “birther” Mike,

Here’s a question, because I’m feeling all Socratic: What walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck? A duck!

and I don’t wear a “tin foil hat”,

Is yours specially constructed from stealth materials so that it not only reflects evil mind control waves, but actually shields you from detection by the black helicopters? Did you have it surgically grafted to your skull? “Gentlemen, we can rebuild him; we have the technology”. Are you Lee Majors in disguise? *hums theme tune to the Six Million Dollar Man*

and I’m not “stupid” either

If the shoe fits, don’t do a George Bush – wear it!

or a “conspiracy theorist”, or a “wingnut” as you want to label me.

And yet, here we are.

I am a twenty year veteran of the US Army Mike,

And? I’d love to see you explain how this is at all relevant… Oh, wait, you’re about to try, aren’t you?

who took an Oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. I feel as if that is all I am doing Mike. I took my oath seriously, as did a whole bunch of other folks, and if you can’t argue your points without the name calling and labeling, then you sir, are a waste of my time.

Sooo… Your attempt to defend the Constitution hinges upon spreading unfounded rumours about a legally-elected, sitting President and attempting to subvert the electoral process? And I bet you were just all over it in the 1990s when the Republicans were squawking about treason and Vince Foster every five minutes. You’re a despicable hypocrite, and you know what? Saying you’re a veteran cuts no ice with me.

Your argument holds more weight when you just stick to the FACTS without the rhetoric.

This might have been more effective had you not just finished waving your uniform in my face.

How about answering this while you’re at it:
Why doesn’t Obama just release the documents?
Try that one without answering with “Because he doesn’t have too”.

You mean the documents he’s already released that show him to be a U.S. citizen at birth by virtue of being born in Hawaii? In case you didn’t catch on, that means his birth certificate. The long and the short of it is that he has a valid Hawaiian birth certificate, that any supposed adoption would not have in any way affected his citizenship, and that dual citizenship at any stage in life does not disqualify someone from the Presidency, per the Supreme Court.

Mike,
If I might, I have one more question;
Just suppose for one minute that Obama releases the documents, and they prove that he is not eligible, what are you going to do then?

If they prove that he is eligible, I will just ask why didn’t he release them sooner?
You seem to be the one painting yourself in a corner, not me.

Just suppose that Martians invade. Just suppose that you acquire a functioning set of neurons. Just suppose for one minute that Dick Cheney rips off his mask to reveal that all along (DAH DAH DAH!) he was Darth Vader. Just suppose that your just supposes are a crock of shite… And so on. You get the idea.

Your question is asinine. If Obama were at the centre of some kind of huge conspiracy to illegally elect him POTUS, why would he then release papers proving himself ineligible?

A note to readers: JAMES then decided to jump in, because, well, he felt left out, I guess. Maybe he wanted some attention too, poor thing.

JAMES
IB: He does have to releae them, because, we the taxpayers want assurance that we have not been duped by George Soros and others who are footing the bill for this charade.

Except that Obama has released any and all relevant documents. Your cries for his student records and so on are a little puzzling; no other candidate has been subject to the same level of scrutiny as you seem to desire. I’m sure the next stage for you will be to claim he must prove he’s not a Muslim or some such, as if it mattered.

JAMES
IB: All very valid points– if it takes twnety posts to get the answer, so be it

Oh, thanks… Wait, were you talking to IB? Huh. I guess you must be reading some kind of hidden comment thread, if you think he has anything valid.

Interested Bystander
I agree with you, you know if we would have taken Clinton’s word about “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”, then Clinton would not have been impeached.

Le sigh, again. Prior to Clinton’s deposition regarding Paula Jones, a definition of sex was rubbed hammered out between the lawyers on both sides, which is explained here by the late, lamented Steve Kangas. In short, Clinton was technically correct, according to the definition being used in the hearing, even while being disingenuous according to the common usage. President Clinton was acquitted on the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, in case you’ve forgotten.

And that was a lot less serious than this is.

Obstruction of justice and perjury aren’t serious? Well, I guess that clinches it – you are Republicans!

All of this legal crap just makes me more interested in the questions being asked.
The more he hides, the more people will come looking for it.

Obama has been named in two suits, both of which were dismissed on lack of standing grounds, which is often a court’s way of deflecting nuisance suits.

Mike only gives Obama hope that people will just forget about it.

I’m flattered you think I have so much influence on the President.

Well he’s sadly mistaken, until these documents are released, we’ll keep asking questions.

C’mon, be honest. You could step into a time machine, see Obama born in Hawaii, and have personal, sworn affidavits from every member of the SCOTUS, and you’d still think he wasn’t eligible.

To my readers: And then IB started responding to my wife’s comments on the post, as below.

Interested Bystander
Lottie,
You posted a reply on the other blog that stated this:
“Lottie said
19. January 2009 at 2.16 am
Good post! IB has replied to you over there. He seems to be one of those who doesn’t read all the words, though.”
What words did I not read Lottie?
I thought I gave the hubbie some credit for that one article. The rest of the stuff he posted, just isn’t relevent to the questions I asked.

Aside from the fact that they, you know, show you to be wrong in every particular. Is this like the “civilian” thing, where your definition of relevant is absolutely opposite to everyone else’s?

He does seem to like to call people names and label them though.

No, not people in general. Just the conspicuously dumb.

Maybe you should give him “time out” for that.

I hope you’re not married; if this is your idea of the dynamics of a marriage, your wife has my pity.

Interested Bystander
January 20, 2009 at 8:42 am
Lottie,
I see you are fighting your husbands fight for him. What a good wife.

*snort* Lottie knows I can fight my own battles. We’re like that, though; we give each other support, because, well, we don’t hate each other. We actually love and support each other whenever we can. You should look into that whole “love” thing. You might like it.
And this, dear reader, is the point where IB starts to have an identity crisis by proxy:

You comment this over on the other site:

“Lottie said
20. January 2009 at 5.09 am
Interested Bystander, I am not going to coddle you (sound familiar?). You can address me here or not at all.
And you can save your shots about our age difference. We’ve heard them all and yours is not original. It doesn’t leave you much room for whining over personal insults, either. It also speaks volumes to your maturity (ring another bell?). But then, so does using a sock puppet to talk to yourself and validate your own comments.”

I will not answer you on your blog, for the simple fact that you do not DESERVE it. I see you come over here, and I admit to visiting your blog, but I have done it for the last time.

Aha! (DAH DAH DAH! music etc) If I’m not mistaken, this is where IB admits to being a sockpuppet for JAMES, or an admin over there. How else could he see Lottie coming over, except by viewing the site stats? Maybe he means he’s seen me, which I don’t deny. I’ve visited a few times in the meantime to have a chuckle. This also belies his claim to be an interested bystander; if he’s an admin or sockpuppet, he’s not a bystander, but an interested party.

I totally agree with this statement that is posted on YOUR blog:

Mine, actually, but facts aren’t your friends.

“29,144 people have wasted some time here since 4th November 2007″
Your blog is a waste of time. I will not be visiting again.

For someone who considers it a waste of time, you’ve sure spent a lot of time responding…

I do not believe anyone would think that I was making light of our age difference Lottie, you see, I have no idea how old you are, or how old Mike is. I was commenting on your maturity, or lack there of. You see, people who can not argue their points in a reasonable way, result to calling names as Mike did. I put one line about showing your MATURITY, and you read in that one line, that I am making light of some “age difference”, which I didn’t bring up one time in my whole comment.

Because I don’t mention anywhere that there is a 13-year age difference between my wife and me. *rolls eyes*

And actually, you have it wrong again. Look at me being all surprised. I argued reasonably and called you names. You can attempt to sidestep the argument all you like by claiming that the name-calling invalidates it… but it won’t work. Arguments rely on facts, you see, and names don’t alter facts, as much you might like to believe otherwise.

I suppose asking legitimate questions is being a “birther” or “wearing a tin foil hat” (whatever that means), or being a “wing nut” or “stupid”, which among other things, is what Mike called me.

When you ask some legitimate questions, this might be valid… But you didn’t. You asked questions which have been roundly answered, and made allegations and insinuations which have been roundly debunked at every turn. If the shoe fits, wear it, Cinderella.

In my comment back to Mike, I didn’t lower myself to that kind of argument.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk. What is this, dodgeball?

And you’re right Lottie; it “speaks volumes to your maturity”. Thank you for acknowledging that you agree that I am arguing legitimate points without the name calling.

And there’s that reading comprehension issue again! I know my wife pretty well, and I’m fairly sure she wouldn’t acknowledge anything of the sort, especially as the points you’ve argued are entirely bogus.

Maybe you are making progress Lottie.
Now Lottie, would you care to make Mike’s points for him?
He didn’t do very well.

Heh. Who has the facts, IB? Who has reason, rather than specious speculation and slander? Oh, wait, it’s me.

Let this be a lesson to you, chilluns. Excessive entanglement with conspiracies rots your brain.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Le stupid! Il brûle!”

  1. Lottie said

    Slam and dunk! Excellent fisking! 😀

    Wonder why he didn’t allow your pingback this time. 😉

  2. Mike said

    Maybe he didn’t see it yet. I know that he wouldn’t do anything so un-American as censor opposing opinion.

  3. Shannon said

    Oh, this blog put a smug smile on my face. Interested Bystander is a neocon dullard. He used to post his inane wingnut bullshit over at BigHeadDC before they closed the comments section . He loves to spew anti-Obama conspiracies. Before he became a birther, he was promoting and defending the Larry Sinclair story. He is the personification of a bad joke.

  4. Mike said

    Hehehe… I always like to see use of the word “dullard”.

    He’s definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?

    It comes as no surprise that he would’ve been pimping the Sinclair story; that seems like just the kind of scummy rumour he would’ve latched onto at the first opportunity.

    Bottom line is that these people have already decided that Obama is illegitimate, and they just change the reason according to whatever seems most likely to be believed at the time.

  5. Lottie said

    Another problem with anti-Obama conspiracy nuts is that they keep saying, show me, after they’ve been shown repeatedly. Anyone who presents evidence that doesn’t back up their claims is part of the alleged conspiracy. The only evidence they will accept as credible is that which supports their frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracy theories.

  6. Lottie said

    By the way, Mike, you should check out Shannon’s blog. He’s a very funny guy! He even writes facetious emails to Fred Phelps. I’m still laughing about it as I write this. 😆

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: