7 days remaining until Obama disqualification

[Dennis S]

I heard he went to Hawaii to kill his Grandmother so she wouldn't rat him out.

[Ted King]

Dennis S wrote:
I heard he went to Hawaii to kill his Grandmother so she wouldn't rat him out.

That's BS. I heard he went to Hawaii to make sure that everything was in order for other people to take over the vast conspiracy network to suppress his real place of birth that his grandmother was running when she became ill enough that she couldn't run such a huge enterprise anymore. Plus he needed to personally carry tens of millions of dollars in cash from his campaign contributions with him as payola to everyone involved in the conspiracy.

[Gutenberg]

Not to mention the fact that he had to "silence" half the Hawaii Department of Health--you know, the traditional way. Sleeping with the koi. It's amazing he managed to get all that done in a weekend, isn't it? What a man! I'm glad he's going to be my President!

[lafinfil]

-you know, the traditional way. Sleeping with the koi.

Ha !

[Black Landlord]

lafinfil wrote:
-you know, the traditional way. Sleeping with the koi.

Ha !

Yeah, very good.

[Rick-o]

davester wrote:
I'm shocked to find that Obama has insinuated that he is black. If you look very closely you'll see that he is in fact brown. He's pulling the wool over the eyes of the black community!

Agreed. Why, he even passed the brown paper bag test!

[wondering bear]

There is no requirement for proof of birth if the system refuses to entertain the argument. Isn't that where we are going? Several courts across the country have already thrown the argument out without consideration. This sets up an interesting scenario come inauguration day. Will a Bible be used for the swearing-in or be ignored for a more appropriate method; say....a union handbook?

[wondering bear]

Another point to ponder....theoretical, of course; if a presidential candidate takes the oath of office holding a different set of religeous values than the writers of the Constitution had in mind for an American President (or none at all) when they created the oath (and make no mistake; the Founding Fathers of this country were Bible-carrying men); the question I then pose is; given then; the candidate having no like philosophical persuasion religeous or otherwise; is that candidate then duly sworn upon the completion of the ceremony or is the ceremony deemed hollow and illegal; assuming the word SOLEMN is then believed to be unworthy of such a candidate to hold in the proper valid and respected esteem? After all; one could argue that is exactly the situation the last impeached president found himself in after the fact...whether he would or would not admit to it.

[Black Landlord]

wondering bear wrote:
Another point to ponder....theoretical, of course; if a presidential candidate takes the oath of office holding a different set of religeous values than the writers of the Constitution had in mind for an American President (or none at all) when they created the oath (and make no mistake; the Founding Fathers of this country were Bible-carrying men); the question I then pose is; given then; the candidate having no like philosophical persuasion religeous or otherwise; is that candidate then duly sworn upon the completion of the ceremony or is the ceremony deemed hollow and illegal; assuming the word SOLEMN is then believed to be unworthy of such a candidate to hold in the proper valid and respected esteem? After all; one could argue that is exactly the situation the last impeached president found himself in after the fact...whether he would or would not admit to it.

I don't know, but do you realize you've made three posts using the same account?
Are you OK? Do you need anything?

[NeverMind]

and make no mistake; the Founding Fathers of this country were Bible-carrying men wrote:

Go educate yourself, you apparently don't know ANYTHING about the signers.