As I said, your posts had to countered with truth. You claimed some easily discounted BS about about past laws and you were caught. You admitted to being a troll and I agreed.
Well, show me my exact words alleging I am a troll. If you can't find me admitting it, you trolled. And I have never seen a refutation of the law I spoke of. Actually, you introduced the term Troll as a pejorative. And you know you did.
lol Is the fryolator more your speed? Jimminy crowbeedogs. I presented the actual law that debunked your fading memory, and completely demolished your point. You didn't even try. You think this involves "clerking?" I did your work for you and your response is essentially a blank-stare "would you like fries with that."
I never saw your alleged post. Want me to read it, simply repost or at least tell me the post number.
Oh, bullshit. You even quoted my post that told you EXACTLY where and what the post was when you said this: Robert said: ↑ I am not here to clerk for you either. The post you quoted: Paperview said: ↑ Or you could read the post directly above the one you quoted which cites the law, showing how wrong you are - and sends fact bricks falling down upon you. Tsk
This isn't about your country or your politicians. This is about Obama who despite providing far more evidence than any past president still has people who think he is not a natural-born US citizen. That's why people think it's racist, because no white president of the US or white candidate for president of the US has been paid the same level of BS scrutiny by conspiracy theorists and morons.
Oh, this stumbled out once I clicked a post today. This is your proof? Was this legally tested or published by the amateur Snopes site? BTW I had read the actual law and not what Snopes says about the law.
You are alleging that to discuss Obama makes you a full blown racist and then you made sure you discussed Obama. Can't get any funnier than that.
You are in error. And you proved it for me. You told me I could read the post. I had not read the post until maybe 15 minutes ago.
You have to be one of the worst debaters of all times. There's nothing in that law you can argue with -- Obama was born in US -- and you are trying to say the millions and millions of Trump birthers and even yourself were led by the nose for nearly ten years by a conspiracy theorist who supported Hillary, and who walked away from that dumb that **** CT long, long ago. Do you recognize how incredibility foolish this makes you and your fellow birthers look? Rhetorical. Don't bother.
I'm not in error. You quoted my post. That you couldn't be bothered to take my advice in the post you quoted is on you...Mr. I'm no clerk.
Why don't you grab the actual law and post it? Frankly, if Obama was born in Greece, it matters not to me. I only jumped in when I saw posts by angry Democrats going on and on.
If that is your defense, then you are admitting you are incapable of understanding the words you yourself quote. Not a good look.
I. D I D post it. what is wrong with you? I'm trying to be gentle, but man alive -- it's hard to not think there may be some dementia at play here, and for that, I truly wish you regards in dealing with it, sincerely -- or that you are seriously trolling to make whatever point, I don't know, and if that's the case, the reflection on you is not good.
Which has no relevance to reality. Because it's a moronic as watching a video about faking the moon landing
I assume Robert is referring to INA section 301G and he is as always wrong (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 28 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
What a way to deny Philip Berg his moment in history since he took this to court of law. Free Republic accepts any posters views.