patrick.net

Dan8267 says

The Republicans have bitch and moaned that Obama is not a legitimate
president because in order to be a "natural born citizen", your momma has to
birth your ass on American soil. It's not sufficient to be born to American
citizens.

Everybody that voted republican in 2008 against Obama, voted for John McCain, who was born in Panama.

Where's the outcry about McCain???

Dan8267 says

There is no logical way to conclude that Ted Cruz can legitimately be president but Obama is not legitimately eligible to be president. You simply cannot resolve this direct contradiction.

But I don't *want* to think. I want my marching orders. I want my overlords to tell me The Truth.

freak80 says

Dan8267 says

There is no logical way to conclude that Ted Cruz can legitimately be president but Obama is not legitimately eligible to be president. You simply cannot resolve this direct contradiction.

But I don't *want* to think. I want my marching orders. I want my overlords to tell me The Truth.

Then just vote democrat.

Everybody knows republicans are retarded and everything bad is their fault.

A vote for all democrats, will not only make you feel better about yourself, but will help usher in a new level of american prosperity that is currently beyond comprehension. Because everybody knows that's what voting democrat is all about. Solving the republicans problems.

Democrats, they do the country good

Is Ted Cruz running for president??? I didn't think so.

Dan8267 says

Here's the entire spectacle. I almost feel sorry for the Republican. …almost.

That is painful to watch. Regardless, I am sure the GOP will once again choose someone to run who is totally un-electable and appealing mainly to the far right versus finding someone who is actually somewhat reasonable. So it doesn't really matter at this point.

edvard2 says

That is painful to watch. Regardless, I am sure the GOP will once again
choose someone to run who is totally un-electable and appealing mainly to the
far right versus finding someone who is actually somewhat reasonable. So it
doesn't really matter at this point.

It's worked for the plutocrats great so far that fund the republicans, and generally both parties. Run some real extremist on the republican ticket, double down on a centrist right democrat, and let the "voters" choose, and get the politican that the plutocrats wanted. Non-decisional choices.

upisdown says

It's worked for the plutocrats great so far that fund the republicans, and generally both parties. Run some real extremist on the republican ticket, double down on a centrist right democrat, and let the "voters" choose, and get the
politican that the plutocrats wanted. Non-decisional choices.

"We basically have a *center-right* party, and then we have a *crazy* party...made up of flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters." -- Bill Maher

Dan8267 says

Here's the entire spectacle.

Unbelievable.

Actually it was quite entertaining watching matthews have a live TV conniption trying to make someone repeat his words.
Notice who was smiling the whole time during the sequence, and who was shitting their pants....
The fat boy wins...

edvard2 says

Dan8267 says

Here's the entire spectacle. I almost feel sorry for the Republican. …almost.

That is painful to watch.

freak80 says

"We basically have a *center-right* party, and then we have a *crazy* party...made up of flat-earthers and Civil War re-enacters." -- Bill Maher

Yes. Democrats are center-right. Republicans are crazy. And true liberals are orthogonal.

SoftShell says

Actually it was quite entertaining watching matthews have a live TV conniption trying to make someone repeat his words.

Notice who was smiling the whole time during the sequence, and who was shitting their pants....

The fat boy wins...

And again, Shrek comes in to demonstrate the very thesis of the original post that Republicans are batshit crazy. Only the crazy can take a video of a Republican doing linguistical contortions to avoid acknowledging the utter hypocrisy of his two contradicting positions.

Here's how a real man answers the question. Yes, Ted Cruz is a natural American citizen and can legitimately run for president. Yes, Barrack Obama is a natural American citizen and was legitimately elected president. Yes, even if Obama had been born in Kenya -- which he wasn't -- to an American citizen, he would be an American citizen and could legitimately run for president. The only person who was not a legitimate president was George W. Bush. That election was stolen by deliberate misinterpretation and deliberate discarding of votes in Palm Beach County, FL. And although Bush was not responsible for that election fraud, he sure as fuck took advantage of it, and that shows a complete lack of morality, ethics, and respect for the law.

Dan8267 says

Here's how a real man answers the question. Yes, Ted Cruz is a natural American citizen and can legitimately run for president. Yes, Barrack Obama is a natural American citizen and was legitimately elected president.

Or...

No, Barrack Obama is not a "natural born" American citizen and was is not eligible for the position of US President. No, Ted Cruz not a "natural born" American citizen and he can not legitimately run for President.

Either way for god's sake have some conviction and integrity in what you are saying!

SoftShell says

Notice who was smiling the whole time during the sequence, and who was shitting their pants....
The fat boy wins...

Yes, regardless of what they are saying I always assume that the "winner" in an exchange is whomever can maintain a smile the longest. It is always sure sign of integrity, honesty and stability.

Right...?

leo707 says

Or...

No, Barrack Obama is not a "natural born" American citizen and was is not eligible for the position of US President. No, Ted Cruz not a "natural born" American citizen and he can not legitimately run for President.

Either way for god's sake have some conviction and integrity in what you are saying!

True that.

The denial would be wrong, but at least non-hypocritical.

leo707 says

Harley Quinn is hot. I've always said so.

If he were smart enough he would have simply yelled "what difference at this point does it make?!!" and shut up Matthews for good.

mell says

If he were smart enough he would have simply yelled "what difference at this point does it make?!!" and shut up Matthews for good.

Are you arguing that if someone breaks a law -- a law that I strongly support and have actively condemned...like...hmmmm let's say murder -- and they get away with it, then because it was successfully circumvented the law no longer has any point? And, if I do a 180 on my position, and support my friend being able to commit murder then that is in no way hypocritical?

leo707 says

Are you arguing that if someone breaks a law -- a law that I strongly support and have actively condemned...like...hmmmm let's say murder -- and they get away with it, then because it was successfully circumvented the law no longer has any point? And, if I do a 180 on my position, and support my friend being able to commit murder then that is in no way hypocritical?

No, but that was apparently what Hillary thought of the Benghazi incident. Not that I support the US expansion in the middle-east, but I would be pretty pissed as an affected family member about that fervent and at the same time demeaning answer ;)

The republicans are pants-on-head befuddled, pandering prevaricators.

But the "Democrat Wonderland" some promise is a fairy tale.
The liberal class was destroyed in the last century. Obama is somewhere to the right of Nixon.
They all feed at the same trough. In the words of Chris Hedges, "you can't vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs"

mell says

leo707 says

Are you arguing that if someone breaks a law -- a law that I strongly support and have actively condemned...like...hmmmm let's say murder -- and they get away with it, then because it was successfully circumvented the law no longer has any point? And, if I do a 180 on my position, and support my friend being able to commit murder then that is in no way hypocritical?

No...

Applying it to the topic of the thread I am not sure that I understand your answer...

Are you saying that: even if a law is successfully circumvented then it still has a point? And, that: reversing a position on a law just because a friend wants to break the law is hypocritical?

thomaswong.1986 says

You should realize that Children born overseas to American Born Citizens are
US Citizens by birth...it need not be US Territory.

But was that the law when McCain was born though?

leo707 says

Applying it to the topic of the thread I am not sure that I understand your answer...

Are you saying that: even if a law is successfully circumvented then it still has a point? And, that: reversing a position on a law just because a friend wants to break the law is hypocritical?

Yes, circumvented laws still have a point. Although there are some that are mainly in place to facilitate judgements of fault in case of damage, e.g. no bikes on the sidewalk, but are not enforced otherwise. Yes, reversing is hypocritical, but it's a common occurrence on capitol hill across party lines, not newsworthy.

thomaswong.1986 says

go look it up...

Translation: you have no f-in clue. I almost for a second forgot who posted that response.

mell says

Yes, reversing is hypocritical, but it's a common occurrence on capitol hill across party lines, not newsworthy.

So, then we are agreed that Farenthold is a hypocrite trying to weasel he way out of answering a question that would out him for the hypocritical weasel that he is.

Why then the knee-jerk defense of him? Just because hypocrisy is common should we accept it as OK behavior from our leaders?

mell, on a side note do you think that Obama is a "natural born" citizen and eligible to hold the Presidency?

leo707 says

So, then we are agreed that Farenthold is a hypocrite trying to weasel he way out of answering a question that would out him for the hypocritical weasel that he is.

From nbc:

According to the Constitution, the president must be a “natural born” U.S. citizen. But the term “natural born” is not defined by the document.

So there is always some room for interpretation/speculation, he should have simply said "yes, apparently BO is a natural born citizen and so is Ted Cruz". But this topic is a bit overdone.

leo707 says

Why then the knee-jerk defense of him? Just because hypocrisy is common should we accept it as OK behavior from our leaders?

That was a sarcastic remark in how HIllary IMO dodged a question with much more conviction, so she didn't get cornered like that dude. I don't like most Democrats and Republicans, my 'OK' fantasy cabinet would include both Pauls, Bill Still, Grayson, Kucinich, Nader and a couple more. So really, I don't care for this dude ;)

leo707 says

mell, on a side note do you think that Obama is a "natural born" citizen and eligible to hold the Presidency?

I don't know if he is or isn't, esp. with the non-specific constitution and the long form vs short from birth certificate controversy, but I am not that interested in finding out ;)

mell says

So there is always some room for interpretation/speculation, he should have
simply said "yes, apparently BO is a natural born citizen and so is Ted Cruz".
But this topic is a bit overdone.

Either you follow the citizenship laws that made McCain eligible by being born in a foreign country but under the US Territory exclusion, and McCain was legitmately born.

OR you don't and Cruz isn't elgible. They BOTH can't be eligible under the criteria that was cited and congress stated as basing their McCain citizenship decision on, per the Washingto Post.

edvard2 says

That is painful to watch. Regardless, I am sure the GOP will once again choose someone to run who is totally un-electable and appealing mainly to the far right versus finding someone who is actually somewhat reasonable. So it doesn't really matter at this point.

Do you ever read National Review? It's interesting, and I do like the rare occasions when they propose something rather than saying "Obama is evil today because he supported the rebels in Libya, I mean, didn't support the rebels in Syria, I mean, did support the rebels in Syria"

Anyhow, a common theme there is that the GOP lost the last two elections because McCain and Romney were practically Communists, and not conservative enough. So we'll see what comes out in 2016.

Dan8267 says

There is no logical way to conclude that Ted Cruz can legitimately be president but Obama is not legitimately eligible to be president.

John McCain was born in Panama.

Mitt Romney arrived from another galaxy. Oh, wait, wrong cult.

leo707 says

No, Barrack Obama is not a "natural born" American citizen and was is not eligible for the position of US President. No, Ted Cruz not a "natural born" American citizen and he can not legitimately run for President.

There are some birthers who are consistent and reject Cruz as well.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/ask-birther-ted-cruz/68531/

thomaswong.1986 says

As one Famous Republican said about Liberal NYers...

and its self destructive behavior/policies asking to be bailed out.

You don't look at maps much. Corning is a long way from New York City.

Oh wait, that's right...Corning is in New York state, and anything "New York" is obviously evil.

thomaswong.1986 says

speculation when they were given CIA reports pointing to actual facts to the events why did Obama staff alter all the facts before the Sunday talk shows...

What, is it impossible that there were protests going on and the true terrorists chose that moment, because of the chaos of the protest giving them some cover, or that the anti-muslim video was a trigger for the terrorists who did it ?

Seriously, if there were protests going on in parts of the middle east over the video, and there were some hard core muslims that were super upset about the video, do we know that it was completely disconnected from the attacks ? Why wouldn't it be a trigger, sort of like when a natural catastrophe is a trigger for looting of stores.

In such a situation, was it the storm the cause of the looting, because it took safety workers away from protecting commercial property, or was it the scumbags who used the storm as an excuse to do something they wanted to do anyway ?

Also, if Benghazi (sp?) was simply a mistake by our government on many levels, shouldn't the security funding cuts to embassies and other outposts that were made by congress also be given some blame ?

thomaswong.1986 says

New York.. New York City.. just like Massachusetts... its all the same.

You've obviously never been here.

There's plenty of far-right insanity out in the rural areas of NY state. Just like in the rural areas of any other state.

SiO2 says

leo707 says

No, Barrack Obama is not a "natural born" American citizen and was is not eligible for the position of US President. No, Ted Cruz not a "natural born" American citizen and he can not legitimately run for President.

There are some birthers who are consistent and reject Cruz as well.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/08/ask-birther-ted-cruz/68531/

Yes, but how would they cast their ballots, and how much of a stink would they cause of Cruz won? I don't doubt that some would have the integrity to stick to their guns, but I would bet that the numbers would be insignificant and certainly we would not hear word-one about it from Trump.

You all are missing the biggest point of the exchange.
All republican and democratic politicians avoid answering direct questions 99% of the time. They all reframe the question to the way they would like to answer it.
Check out any sunday political talk show for verification.
I've seen far worse from the likes of pelosi, wassarwomanschultz, et al...
Yawn........

leo707 says

SoftShell says

Notice who was smiling the whole time during the sequence, and who was shitting their pants....

The fat boy wins...

Yes, regardless of what they are saying I always assume that the "winner" in an exchange is whomever can maintain a smile the longest. It is always sure sign of integrity, honesty and stability.

Right...?

thomaswong.1986 says

Obama did lie.. and the moderator backed up Romney's claim..

wtf ? Actually quite the opposite. Are you for real ?

Here, from your own article:

ROMNEY: I think (it's) interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.

You can't make this stuff up.

Man, working for Fox sure must be an easy job. These idiots will grasp for any little twisted way to see themselves as right.

thomaswong.1986 says

see link above...

"He was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word," Candy Crowley said of Romney on CNN shortly after the debate ended.

But surely if you are the corporate executive you claim to be, you can see that in the exchange, Obama did not lie when he said he referred to it as an act of terror, the morning after.

And that Romney was severely mistaken when he said this: "I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

That was wrong. If he was right about Obama implying other things as being possibilitiies (such as a backdrop of a protest when the terrorists attacked), okay. But in that exchange, Obama was completely right and Romney was completely wrong.

Only someone with very elaborate lying skills would deny this.

SoftShell says

You all are missing the biggest point of the exchange.

All republican and democratic politicians avoid answering direct questions 99% of the time. They all reframe the question to the way they would like to answer it.

Check out any sunday political talk show for verification.

I've seen far worse from the likes of pelosi, wassarwomanschultz, et al...

Yawn........

That certainly is true.

thomaswong.1986 says

There were no protests that day.. there were the next day.. and they were all Pro_American.

THere were protests elsewhere, such as in Egypt. So elsewhere in the middle east wacko extremists were protesting the video.

Can we agree that terrorists in that part of the world are sometimes wacko Islamic fundamentalists ? The same type that might kill over perceived disrespect of Mohammed? So at the same time that protests over the video are happening elsewhere in the middle east, our government speculated that there might have been a connection.

Oh, the horror.

thomaswong.1986 says

but he certainly did not call Benghazi terrorism in the first two weeks after the attack

So he did call it an act or terror, but he did not call it terrorism ?

You are so clueless. You're dumber than Sean Hannity. But he is just a scumbag who lies for money. What's your excuse ?

If I was going to be vicariously ashamed and embarrassed for republicans, I don't know whether it would be for the dishonesty (with yourself) and the stupidity, or whether it would be for the downright low integrity scum that they are, trying to use that type of tragedy for political gain.