Search results

No you're the birther, claiming to know where he was born, in the face of a fraudulent birth certificate, proven fraudulent in a well-documented process. I don't know where he was born, and neither do you. We do know the certificate presented was/still is fraudulent.

Again, to be clear, Trump's comment, prior to the election, said nothing of, and was not a judgement on the work of Joe A's investigation. He simply stated what was possible, as if he knew. Whether he knew or not, nobody knows. It could have been an entirely political play. Obama born in US +...

What is your objection? It's possible Obama was born in the US. The certificate he presented was a fraud. Both can be true., A fraudulent certificate simply increases the odds he is/was not elligable in any way, at any time. Reasons for a fraudulent certificate could include a completely...

I wouldn't call it a birther fight. Logically, it's possible Obama could have been born in the US, and to have presented a fraudulent certificate. Arapaio proved it was fraudulent only. Did not prove where, or where not he was born. Because it is fraudulent, it increases the probability he was...

Not logical. Not all pardoned are innocent. But not all pardoned must be guilty, while the judicial system is imperfect, having already sent 100% innocents to jail for things they did not do. You have proven you cannot reason.

Oh, ok. So you don't have any sources to back that up. Will you now hold me in contempt of Tony, the biggest birther ever?

I'm not relying on that opinion. I'm relying on common sense which says that not all persons convicted by the judicial system are are guilty, because the judicial system does not have perfectly clean hands. You disagree?

I didn't quote anything. I linked to an article. You seem a little touchy about an opinion from 1833. What about that opinion does not apply to Arapaio?

You are ignoring the fact that some people are convicted entirely unjustly, and not just partly, because the justice system itself is not wholly clean hands. So you're saying Arapaio is guilty of contempt of court? And the court was wholly justified? And this affects the credibility of his...

Did you realize Stark is in over his head on this and come running to help with personal attacks?

I can't find any sources on that. What are your sources?

Can you read? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/26/is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/

Did Hawaii vouch for the "certificate" that was finally presented officially? In other words, does it contradict the findings of Arpaios investigators?

Arpaio hired at least two different investigators, with good reputations of their own, coming at it from their own methods. You are completely unaware of their findings and assesments? This is before Arpaio was framed, and pardoned (because he was framed).

Arpaio already had it investigated. The "certificate" presented, officially, turned out to be fraudulent. They then tried to hammer Arpaio.

Nice little switcheroo there. But the party had to be racist to pull the switch, to explicitly pander to a voting block, while the GOP has remained the same, neither racist, nor it's close cousin, favoritist. It's possible blacks responded, as a block, to an economic offer made to their race...

Why do you say "party of the racist confederate south", instead of the Democrats?

You mean racists should vote to further empower their own race?

You mean racists should vote to further empower their own race?

What are they, plantation drivers? Anybody expecting a race to vote as a block, or any race voting as a block is racist. ...unless you can come up with some other definition that doesn't make you out to be a hypocrite.