Comments: Ah, the 'ol kindred spirit argument surfaces again among the 'bats

(We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Well, the level of intellectual and moral fraud over there is pretty shocking -- yesterday I made the statement that the evidence IS overwhelming that he is a natural born citizen, only to be denounced by one of the major players there as being a Birther because the statement was allegedly "hedging" on the question of Obama's birth and citizenship by not saying that "the question is closed". Apparently it is not enough to AGREE with them on a point, but one must use the proper wording to be within the bounds of orthodoxy (and I've been done with that game since leaving the seminary).

Posted by Rhymes With Right at April 22, 2010 06:33 AM

Got any Democratically controlled bodies that passed a resolution embracing the truthers? See, all of your example show a minority (or individual) opinion, whereas the Arizona example is a legislative body expressing their lunacy with a majority vote.

Posted by LiberalGeek at April 22, 2010 10:24 AM

And what was the final tally of that vote, Geek? How does that reflect the popular opinion in AZ?

12 New England towns demand 9/11 reinvestigation: http://www.911blogger.com/node/22795

This link says 12 New Hampshire towns: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:EDHcta2if8gJ:wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2659+new+hampshire+legislature+passes+resolution+9/11+truth&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=gmail

And remember, over 1/3 of Democrats NATIONWIDE believe 9/11 was an inside job: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/08/04/flashback-35-democrats-think-bush-knew-9-11-attacks-advance

This is MORE than those nationwide who believe Obama is not a natural-born citizen.

But, you're missing the point. I know you (and pan, and the rest of your posse) would continue to love to use the majority that prevailed in the AZ House as an example of "the new" GOP. Maybe even the AZ House vote *is* a better example than what I've provided above in rebuttal. Just like the Tea Partiers, you'll attempt to paint an entire group by the actions of a FEW. But when righties do exactly the same thing, you're the most vociferous in opposition.

Posted by Hube at April 22, 2010 05:49 PM

And please note that the law takes NO position on Obama's birth or citizenship, but merely imposes a legitimate requirement of showing eligibility for the office in order to get on the ballot. Why NOT require that?

Posted by Rhymes With Right at April 22, 2010 07:49 PM

Shall they also demand that the candidate prove that he has been a citizen of the United States for at least 14 years?

The significance here is that there are a group of elected lawmakers that have, by majority vote, capitulated to a group of angry, loud, ill-informed constituents. It is also useful to note that they only now feel the need to require a birth certificate when a guy with a funny name is President.

Was AZ a state when Millard Fillmore was elected. I would guess not. :)

Posted by LiberalGeek at April 23, 2010 12:10 AM

Acually, the law does include that requirement LG. The media simply has not bothered to discuss that aspect of it.

Posted by Rhymes With Right at April 23, 2010 06:10 AM

And I'm particularly struck by the elitist attitude that you show, LG, in suggesting that there is something wrong with legislators doing what a group of constituents wants them to do.

Posted by Rhymes With Right at April 23, 2010 06:11 AM