Useful Idiots are Everywhere
Jun 6, 2013 16:14:13 #
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
The Dutchman wrote:
So instead of your refusing to acknowledge the kno... (show quote)
I haven't seen one attempt by our leaners to dispute the words of Norman Thomas that you began this useful idiot discussion with. I wonder if they aren't beginning to see how they are being used as useful idiots just as Thomas said they would be.
When they argue about Detroit, or California or Chicago they prove that they are just like that and have been taken in completely.
Jun 6, 2013 16:18:38 #
oldroy wrote:
I haven't seen one attempt by our leaners to dispute the words of Norman Thomas that you began this useful idiot discussion with. I wonder if they aren't beginning to see how they are being used as useful idiots just as Thomas said they would be.
When they argue about Detroit, or California or Chicago they prove that they are just like that and have been taken in completely.
When they argue about Detroit, or California or Chicago they prove that they are just like that and have been taken in completely.
Notice how old straightup always ignores facts that he can't twist to his useful idiot way of thinking?
Jun 6, 2013 18:20:17 #
oldroy
Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)
The Dutchman wrote:
Notice how old straightup always ignores facts that he can't twist to his useful idiot way of thinking?
Ah, but he says he deals only in facts but so often can't tell you where he got his facts. I think that too often it is Stink Prog, Daily Kos or Media Matters. There are some more of them but those three are financed by old George Soros.
Jun 6, 2013 20:04:24 #
After reading all of this, I hope all of you realize that Straight UP likes to play you guys. To use my terms, stir the pot and see what bubbles up, then stir it some more.
Why play his game? Ignore him if he can't provide the facts you want from him. I think he is just asking controversial questions to see where they lead. He may even be intending to try to make some of us look stupid, but I think he may be trying to make us think a little deeper on various topics. I would ignore most of his stuff until it can be determined what his ideology is. He can't remain a fence sitter forever.
Why play his game? Ignore him if he can't provide the facts you want from him. I think he is just asking controversial questions to see where they lead. He may even be intending to try to make some of us look stupid, but I think he may be trying to make us think a little deeper on various topics. I would ignore most of his stuff until it can be determined what his ideology is. He can't remain a fence sitter forever.
Jun 6, 2013 22:55:35 #
oldroy wrote:
Ah, but he says he deals only in facts but so often can't tell you where he got his facts. I think that too often it is Stink Prog, Daily Kos or Media Matters. There are some more of them but those three are financed by old George Soros.
Just like queenie! he wouldn't know facts if they jumped up and bit him in the ass!
Jun 6, 2013 22:56:19 #
Jun 7, 2013 04:35:00 #
straightUp wrote:
What difference does it make? You don't even know my name and you're actually asking me what law school I went to. LOL... Besides, we aren't talking about anything complicated here, the level of legal understanding required to recognize how ignorant you are is the basic stuff every citizen should know.
Quid Prro Quo, straightUP: You have adequately demonstrated that you never went to any law school. You are so legally ignorant you don't even know how ignorant you are. Your kind of argument is just to say something no matter how irrelevant, like not knowing your name, and then post an LOL as if you just won something. Not only are you legally ignorant, but you evidence you're a typical brain dead liberal. The legal understanding you claim is "the basic stuff every citizen should know", is in fact legally incorrect, and you're just too dumb to know it. But notwithstanding, you're extremely proud of your
ignorance, and think it is infinite wisdom, just like a true liberal.
Jun 7, 2013 04:57:56 #
Yankee Clipper wrote:
b After reading all of this, I hope all of you re... (show quote)
Go the the Introduce Yourself section. He did an expansive intro on May 15th.
Jun 7, 2013 05:14:18 #
Yankee Clipper wrote:
b After reading all of this, I hope all of you re... (show quote)
Go the the Introduce Yourself section. He did an expansive intro on May 15th.
Jun 7, 2013 05:39:24 #
CrazyHorse wrote:
Quid Pro Quo, straightUP: Stated as if down from on high: "In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is a reason for that rule. Without prosecution there is no charge. Without charge there is no reason for proof. The charge is that Obama used a fake birth certificate. That put's the burden of proof on whoever is issuing the charge. That would be you. "
Hey sparkie,one of your problems is that the Alabama case is not a "criminal case", this is not a "prosecution", it's a "civil case". In civil cases the burden of proof depends upon the issue.
straightUP wrote:
In civil cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff for the same reasons I already explained... in civil cases the plaintiff presents the charge. [sic] In civil cases there ARE exceptions... rare exceptions[sic] such as insanity pleads. I don't see Obama pleading insanity to you?
CrazyHorse Reply: There is no "Charge" in a civil case. You evidence your ignorance of the Complaints or Petitions in civil cases. Nor can you explain the difference between a Complaint and a Petition. Complaints and Petitions state "Claims", not "Charges"
CrazyHorse wrote:
The issue here is Omaggot's constitutional qualification to hold his present office, for which the burden of proof is and has been on Omaggot since he initially ran for office, even up to today; since if he is not constitutionally qualified, he has no constitutional authority for the office even today.
Thank you Captain Obvious for letting me know what the issue is... LOL. But in a civil case the burden of proof turns on the issue. As if everyone in the world doesn't already know. Even my dog knows. As for the burden of proof, that's something you need to do a little reading on... as soon as you can handle words with more that two syllables. Just sarcastic ignorant drivel Bottom line is YOU are the one issuing the charge,There is no "charge" in a civil case, so YOU provide the proof. That's the way it works. You're so ignorant you don't know how ignorant you are. Also, just a side note... If you want to at least give people the impression that you know what you are talking about try to control your anger and refrain from silly name calling. It's hard to take someone who calls Obama "Omaggot" as anything other than a child.Obama and his administration are the most corrupt and rotten in the history of the U.S. It therefore seems to me to be an appropriate metaphor.
CrazyHorse wrote:
Next you opine: "The charge is that Obama used a fake birth certificate. That put's the burden of proof on whoever is issuing the charge."
Now it is you plead another ignorance of the law, or intentionally mislead the readers of 1pp. The issue before the court is whether or not Omaggot is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president and as a result whether the Alabama election results should be overturned. The fraudulent computer generated birth certificate is the only alleged evidence Omaggot has submitted to the court as evidence for the courts consideration. Obama clearly has the burden of proof on the issue of the validity of his submitted computer generated birth certificate.
straightUP wrote:
Nothing in your description changes the rules that I have already pointed out. You're just repeating the same thing without offering any legal language to support that argument. I'm sure that's how it works in your circles... say it over and over until it's true, but back in Kansas, the drab reality is that you are wrong. Plain and simple. You WISH the burden of proof was on him but useful idiot rule #1 - repeat until true, just doesn't work when your trying to convince someone who isn't stupid. I tell you what, why don't you link to some legal experts that echo your position, let the grownups talk about this?Well pard, you certainly aren't one. You just provide your subjective drivel. And, I have already above identified your ignorance, the facts of which are beyond your exhibited lack of intelligence, which is controled by your mouth.
CrazyHorse wrote:
so far has no evidence to the contrary that said certificate is not flagrantly fraudulent.
No proof that it is either. sic., Not so. The forensic expertwitness extensive Affidavit supported by his groups extensive emperical testing, is the only non fraudulent evidence presently before the court, and will control the issue, as Obama has no other evidence he can put forth. What you and your band of morons are doing is trying to compensate for your failure to provide proof by telling us the defendant has to provide the proof. That just makes me laugh my ass off. That's because you're a dumb ass and are laughing at your own igorance. Obama has the burden of proof on the issue of his constitutional qualification for the office, and has always had that burden of proof ever since he filed to run for the office, you brain dead liberal lemming drone. Moreover, I don't have any obligation to provide any proof. I'm not a party to the suit. But the fact that the plaintiff in the civil case can provide whatever evidence they want on the issue, doesn't mean they have the "burden of proof" of the issue.
CrazyHorse wrote:
Submitting an intentionally fraudulently manufactured document to the Alabama Supreme Court could qualify Omaggot for a determination and finding that he is guilty of obstruction of justice, a possible jail term, and possibly the loss of any license he may have to practice law.
straightUP reply:
I'm not arguing the consequences of fraud, but how does that have anything to do with who carries the burden of proof? I raised it as an addition issue Obama has now raised in the Alabama Supreme Court by filling an intentional fraudulently computer manufactured birth certificate document with the court; which fraudulent submission the Alabama Supreme Court in my opinion will not take lightly
What I *did* notice is how you start off by arguing that this is a civil case, not a criminal case...
civil cases don't put people in jail. They can for filling a fraudulent document with the court and attempting to obstruct justice, in either a civil case or a criminal case. The process of filling a knowingly fraudulent document into evidence with the court for the court's determination, is in itself, a criminal violation of law, that might be prosecuted independently, or sanctioned by the court in the same case.
CrazyHorse wrote:
So the question for me is what law school, if any, did you attend, maybe Obama's Harvard, Eh?
straightUP wrote:
What difference does it make? You don't even know my name and you're actually asking me what law school I went to. LOL... Besides, we aren't talking about anything complicated here, the level of legal understanding required to recognize how ignorant you are is the basic stuff every citizen should know.
straightUp
CrazyHorse wrote: see separate reply on this last statement, and as follows:Quid Prro Quo, straightUP: You have adequately demonstrated that you never went to any law school. You are so legally ignorant you don't even know how ignorant you are. Your kind of argument is just to say something no matter how irrelevant, like not knowing your name, and then post an LOL as if you just won something. Not only are you legally ignorant, but you evidence you're a typical brain dead liberal. The legal understanding you claim is "the basic stuff every citizen should know", is in fact legally incorrect, and you're just too dumb to know it. But notwithstanding, you're extremely proud of your ignorance, and think it is infinite wisdom, just like a true liberal.
Quid Pro Quo, straightUP: Stated as if down from on high: "In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is a reason for that rule. Without prosecution there is no charge. Without charge there is no reason for proof. The charge is that Obama used a fake birth certificate. That put's the burden of proof on whoever is issuing the charge. That would be you. "
Hey sparkie,one of your problems is that the Alabama case is not a "criminal case", this is not a "prosecution", it's a "civil case". In civil cases the burden of proof depends upon the issue.
straightUP wrote:
In civil cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff for the same reasons I already explained... in civil cases the plaintiff presents the charge. [sic] In civil cases there ARE exceptions... rare exceptions[sic] such as insanity pleads. I don't see Obama pleading insanity to you?
CrazyHorse Reply: There is no "Charge" in a civil case. You evidence your ignorance of the Complaints or Petitions in civil cases. Nor can you explain the difference between a Complaint and a Petition. Complaints and Petitions state "Claims", not "Charges"
CrazyHorse wrote:
The issue here is Omaggot's constitutional qualification to hold his present office, for which the burden of proof is and has been on Omaggot since he initially ran for office, even up to today; since if he is not constitutionally qualified, he has no constitutional authority for the office even today.
Thank you Captain Obvious for letting me know what the issue is... LOL. But in a civil case the burden of proof turns on the issue. As if everyone in the world doesn't already know. Even my dog knows. As for the burden of proof, that's something you need to do a little reading on... as soon as you can handle words with more that two syllables. Just sarcastic ignorant drivel Bottom line is YOU are the one issuing the charge,There is no "charge" in a civil case, so YOU provide the proof. That's the way it works. You're so ignorant you don't know how ignorant you are. Also, just a side note... If you want to at least give people the impression that you know what you are talking about try to control your anger and refrain from silly name calling. It's hard to take someone who calls Obama "Omaggot" as anything other than a child.Obama and his administration are the most corrupt and rotten in the history of the U.S. It therefore seems to me to be an appropriate metaphor.
CrazyHorse wrote:
Next you opine: "The charge is that Obama used a fake birth certificate. That put's the burden of proof on whoever is issuing the charge."
Now it is you plead another ignorance of the law, or intentionally mislead the readers of 1pp. The issue before the court is whether or not Omaggot is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president and as a result whether the Alabama election results should be overturned. The fraudulent computer generated birth certificate is the only alleged evidence Omaggot has submitted to the court as evidence for the courts consideration. Obama clearly has the burden of proof on the issue of the validity of his submitted computer generated birth certificate.
straightUP wrote:
Nothing in your description changes the rules that I have already pointed out. You're just repeating the same thing without offering any legal language to support that argument. I'm sure that's how it works in your circles... say it over and over until it's true, but back in Kansas, the drab reality is that you are wrong. Plain and simple. You WISH the burden of proof was on him but useful idiot rule #1 - repeat until true, just doesn't work when your trying to convince someone who isn't stupid. I tell you what, why don't you link to some legal experts that echo your position, let the grownups talk about this?Well pard, you certainly aren't one. You just provide your subjective drivel. And, I have already above identified your ignorance, the facts of which are beyond your exhibited lack of intelligence, which is controled by your mouth.
CrazyHorse wrote:
so far has no evidence to the contrary that said certificate is not flagrantly fraudulent.
No proof that it is either. sic., Not so. The forensic expertwitness extensive Affidavit supported by his groups extensive emperical testing, is the only non fraudulent evidence presently before the court, and will control the issue, as Obama has no other evidence he can put forth. What you and your band of morons are doing is trying to compensate for your failure to provide proof by telling us the defendant has to provide the proof. That just makes me laugh my ass off. That's because you're a dumb ass and are laughing at your own igorance. Obama has the burden of proof on the issue of his constitutional qualification for the office, and has always had that burden of proof ever since he filed to run for the office, you brain dead liberal lemming drone. Moreover, I don't have any obligation to provide any proof. I'm not a party to the suit. But the fact that the plaintiff in the civil case can provide whatever evidence they want on the issue, doesn't mean they have the "burden of proof" of the issue.
CrazyHorse wrote:
Submitting an intentionally fraudulently manufactured document to the Alabama Supreme Court could qualify Omaggot for a determination and finding that he is guilty of obstruction of justice, a possible jail term, and possibly the loss of any license he may have to practice law.
straightUP reply:
I'm not arguing the consequences of fraud, but how does that have anything to do with who carries the burden of proof? I raised it as an addition issue Obama has now raised in the Alabama Supreme Court by filling an intentional fraudulently computer manufactured birth certificate document with the court; which fraudulent submission the Alabama Supreme Court in my opinion will not take lightly
What I *did* notice is how you start off by arguing that this is a civil case, not a criminal case...
civil cases don't put people in jail. They can for filling a fraudulent document with the court and attempting to obstruct justice, in either a civil case or a criminal case. The process of filling a knowingly fraudulent document into evidence with the court for the court's determination, is in itself, a criminal violation of law, that might be prosecuted independently, or sanctioned by the court in the same case.
CrazyHorse wrote:
So the question for me is what law school, if any, did you attend, maybe Obama's Harvard, Eh?
straightUP wrote:
What difference does it make? You don't even know my name and you're actually asking me what law school I went to. LOL... Besides, we aren't talking about anything complicated here, the level of legal understanding required to recognize how ignorant you are is the basic stuff every citizen should know.
straightUp
CrazyHorse wrote: see separate reply on this last statement, and as follows:Quid Prro Quo, straightUP: You have adequately demonstrated that you never went to any law school. You are so legally ignorant you don't even know how ignorant you are. Your kind of argument is just to say something no matter how irrelevant, like not knowing your name, and then post an LOL as if you just won something. Not only are you legally ignorant, but you evidence you're a typical brain dead liberal. The legal understanding you claim is "the basic stuff every citizen should know", is in fact legally incorrect, and you're just too dumb to know it. But notwithstanding, you're extremely proud of your ignorance, and think it is infinite wisdom, just like a true liberal.
Jun 7, 2013 09:40:38 #
Jun 7, 2013 10:23:06 #
tin can navy wrote:
He? could be a bag of Wal Mart dog food
Quid Pro Quo, tin can navy: Do you really think his intelligence raises to that level? :lol: ;) :thumbup:
Aug 5, 2013 22:52:02 #
Lying, unless it is under oath, is not an impeachable offense. If it were Reagan would not have survived Iran-Contra. If this is the worst charge the conservatives can make against Obama conservatism is dead as a political force in America. I dont like Obama. I didnt vote for Obama. I have never voted Democrat in my life. But this does not mean I have to support the Republicans. And above all else the political infighting of the kind we have been subjected to since January 20, 2009 simply because the Republicans lost an election, sickens me.
Aug 5, 2013 23:47:05 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.