Racist Birther files ballot challenge in Alaska

Agree. JEFF' s a master talking points repeater. It's almost a pleasure to read his well polished, well known lines. No original thought though, but hell...

 

Weak regulation is good -but it has to be combined with a firm NO BAILOUTS policy. Congress gave us the worst of both worlds. They told the bankers "do whatever you want and if screw up, we'll give you all the corporate welfare you need".

 

Right back at ya my Netherlandish friend.

I give you kuddo's though- unlike many of the Birthers you can both spell and you don't use Stormfront as a primary source of information.

 

I am feeling a little odd right now.

I actually kind of agree with you on something you said. Not entirely, but there is some sense in what you said.

I think regulation has to be strong enough to accomplish the goal. Clean water, clean air, sanitary food practices, holding companies and individuals responsible for the polution that they dump on all of us, heck even something as simple as following building codes so that the house you buy has safe electrical wiring.

In principal I am against bailouts- but when we look back at the history of bailouts- the U.S. is probably stronger because of them. I am certainly glad that GM was saved. My issue with the bank bailouts was that we didn't attach more strings to them- and yes- that we haven't reformed our practices so that such a bail out would never be necessary again.

But I agree with you as to what Congress accomplished. And- I blame Obama for not providing firm leadership on this issue.

 

I think it is rather rude of you to call Coolwalker ignorant.

He was very respectful in his questions, and I attempted to answer him respectfully.

So do you have any evidence to support your claim that President Obama granted her aslyum?

Or was she granted aslyum by the State Department, through the usual process that gives thousands of Africans aslyum every year?

Or was she given asylum as all? Frankly I really don't make any effort to follow obscure Obama relatives. I have never understood the Rights fascination with them. But to continue- I don't know whether its true, whether its just the usual propaganda you gleamed from Stormfront, or whether you are just making it up. Not really important to me.

The President shouldn't be directing the State Department or the INS to provide any special treatment to any relatives of his- neither asking them to push enforcement, or avoid enforcement of the laws. Show me some evidence that the President has done otherwise and I will gladly review and comment.

 

Very good JEFF; unlike the majority of your pals Obamabots, you do your assigned job properly, researching the subject and using the most plausible talking points from the Center. A bit too eager, maybe - but that's OK too, you may get noticed and be reassigned to do something more important in the Obamaland

 

I answered his question, Wong. Maybe you should learn how to read into people's words and find their meaning a little better. Back in 2008, I didn't vote for Obama based on his lack of a record. This year, I will not vote for Obama based on his record.

Ultimately, Mr. Wong, this thread is nothing but another troll pulled right from the pages of:

​

 

Hey, look! Jeff must be a Jew. He enjoys talking to walls!

​

 

JEFF... you're too obvious in your eagerness to earn points with the CENTER... stop looking for some poor soul to take your bite - none of us want to see twenty of your righteous posts after that...

 

If I am- will you be reassigned by your secret Birther overlords to my new beat?

Or won't they tell you?

 

Wow....pulling the race card.....I am honored

 

I just wonder why you are so coy about either confirming or denying that you agree with your fellow Alaskan that Barack Obama is not eligible because he is a Mulatto. This is not a hard question.

Here- I will make it even easier for you:

Do you think that a Mulatto is ineligible to be President of the United States:
a) Yes
b) No

Just chose a or b.

Why the reluctance to commit yourself?

 

I find it rather....odd......

Dutch- who has spent days and days arguing with me over obscure Birther claims finds it too challenging to take a yes or no position as to this Birther claim-

Wonder why Dutch is unwilling to commit as to whether he thinks that being a Mulatto makes Obama ineligible to be President?

Wonder why this is the only Birther claim he is so coy about?

 

Since no-one here is going to answering your stupid bait question, can you tell us your position on the matter? Do you stand together with an Alaskan lunatic, or do you oppose him?

 

Sounds reasonable to expect a canudate to establish his eligablity, not racist. The racist accusation must be a progressive neo-communist leftist loser construction based on hyperbole and not facts. A thin veil, to be sure.

 

Epperly presents racial information about Barack Obama’s parents as evidence that he “has the race status of of being a ‘Mulatto.’” Citing Dred Scott v Sanford in support of a claim that Obama would be no citizen of any kind except for the Fourteenth Amendment, Epperly then argues:

As Barack Hussein Obama is of the “Mulatto” race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of “Negro” or “Mulatto” had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

This is the quote by Epperly- if you don't think that is a racist argument- well thanks for clearing up your position on it.

I would say something about a extremist conservative, neo-fascist loser construction....but I don't roll that way.

I will just leave it that you don't find any fault with Epperly's claim that as a "Mulatto", Obama is not eligible to be President.

 

It is a simple yes no question, that you seem to find so challenging to answer.

Not sure why you consider him a lunatic....he appears to be just another Birther to me.

My position?

I oppose Epperly's ballot challenge- I find his position that as a Mulatto Obama is not eligible to be as ridiculous as every other Birther claim.

See- I have no problem taking a position- why do you?

 

It's one thing to be a poltroon. It's another entirely to be a dishonest poltroon.

You were better off when you were merely dodging the question, rather than pretending you answered it.

Oh, don't worry on that account, Paco. I read you Lima Charlie. You're as transparent as chicken broth.

 

President Obama is the only President or presidential candidate in all of US history who has ever proven his eligibility. He has done so twice, and every court or formal hearing that has addressed the question agrees that he has done so.

The fact that Birthers persist cannot be attributed to any failure on his part to do or not do anything. It's roots are revealed rarely by Birthers, but explicitly in the Alaskan ballot challenge that is the subject of the OP.

Read it.

You know, you really should read the Birther legal challenge before you pontificate. It makes you sound... well... a bit clueless.

 

What is most astounding about this thread is that of all the dodging, dancing, avoiding and deflecting by our resident Birthers and fellow travelers... not one of them has managed to simply come out and say: "I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."

I mean seriously, how hard is that?

 

Well that was sort of the whole point of the thread.

Consider that Birthers have claimed for years that Obama not responding to their demands for answers is proof that he is hiding something or is a secret Mooslim or Kommunist.....what does it mean when Birthers refuse to address whether they agree with a blatant racist Birther or not?

 

So you're finally admitting that this entire thread was nothing but a simple race-baiting troll topic. Way to go!

Because you see, the reason why "not one of us has managed to simply come out and say: 'I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist.'" is because we saw what this thread topic truly was about and had decided to string you race-baiting, racist, "tea bag" hating knuckleheads along just to get your little butthurt emotions all in a tizzy.


Tee hee!

 

Actually, I was pulling the religion card. Note my cool signature line.

 

Man... you can't get even the simple stuff right. Demonstrating Birther racism is not "race-baiting." It is legitimately exposing the despicable motivation that underlies the movement. When a Birther like Epperly drops the facade and allows his virulent and atavistic bigotry to break through... in a court filing no less... it is a perfect opportunity to hold the Birther movement accountable.

The point of the thread is to demonstrate that Birthers are, in general, closet racists. You were specifically given an opportunity to make a counter argument. But not only did you not even try, not a single one of you has even hinted that you believe Epperly did or said anything wrong.

It is therefore a completely fair conclusion that you are in full agreement with this guy.

You know, it really doesn't take mad skillz in linguistic discernment to see that a thread that has the word "racist" in its title is about racism. It's also not hard to understand that when it has the phrase "racist Birther" that it's about Birther racism. That you imagine yourself to have cleverly avoided falling into a trap while the claiming victory from the bottom of the pit is just droll.

Yes. "Way to go! "

 

I thought it was painfully obvious to everyone who's not on Obama payroll, or otherwise depends for his/her well-being on Obama's policies, the guy's a jerk and a racist. But you Obamabots seek a perverted pleasure in keeping this tread going, seeking a connection between lunatic and conservatives, where there is none. Let's see if below will silence jeffs and wongs and rahls, or will they now try and distance me from the rest of the conservatives as someone, who "sees the light"... Obamabots so stupid, so ignorant, so racist and so predictable

"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."
"I disagree with Epperly, he is a racist."