On Jun 4, 7:23*pm, corneal pye c...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-04 07:40 PM,Iarnrodwrote:



On Jun 4, 1:06 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid *wrote:
On 11-06-03 10:35 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 3, 10:05 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid * *wrote:
On 11-06-02 11:18 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 2, 11:37 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid * * *wrote:
On 11-05-01 01:57 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

OK...out of curiosity.....
* * How do you explain a copy of the original, posted on the White House
* * website, being a pdf file with layers? *Was it generated as a pdf file 50
* * years ago?
That's what happens when it's scanned. Happens all the time. You seem
flummoxed by the simplest of things.

Who is "UKL Lee"?
--

A little slow, are ya?

NOT an acceptable answer.

You didn't ask an actual question.

Yes I did:

Not an relevant question, fuzznuts.

Given that is the signed name of the "local registrar" it surely IS.

No, it is not at all. It is completely immaterial. Hawaii certified
it, and the matter is settled. The Constitution REQUIRES to you accept
it.

Who is "UKL Lee"?

Immaterial.

Not it UKL Lee is a fictional entry.

Immaterial. Yes.

So do YOU believe the "local registrar" was named "UKL Lee"?

So do you believe all the right wing Kook Aid you guzzle?

Answer the question posed please.

It's an immaterial question.

No it is not.

Yes, of course it is.

You are so inherently intellectually dishonest.

You are, for hating the Constitution. The matter is settled.

Hawaii has certified the birth certificate --

They can do as they wish, the real issue is why is a poorly photoshopped
version is being disseminated by the WH.

You're lying again. You have no understanding of pdfs. Please keep
displaying your utter ignorance.

Don't they have more important fish to fry than playing silly games with
the media and the pubic?

Yes, and that's why the case is closed. As it was in 2008 when Obama
first released his birth certificate and made history by being the
first candidate in history ever to prove his eligibility.

On 11-06-05 01:00 AM, Iarnrod wrote:
On Jun 4, 7:23 pm, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-04 07:40 PM,Iarnrodwrote:



On Jun 4, 1:06 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-03 10:35 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 3, 10:05 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-02 11:18 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 2, 11:37 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-05-01 01:57 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

OK...out of curiosity.....
How do you explain a copy of the original, posted on the White House
website, being a pdf file with layers? Was it generated as a pdf file 50
years ago?
That's what happens when it's scanned. Happens all the time. You seem
flummoxed by the simplest of things.

Who is "UKL Lee"?
--

A little slow, are ya?

NOT an acceptable answer.

You didn't ask an actual question.

Yes I did:

Not an relevant question, fuzznuts.

Given that is the signed name of the "local registrar" it surely IS.

No, it is not at all. It is completely immaterial.

Wrong.

Hawaii certified
it, and the matter is settled.

Not if they made an error.

The Constitution REQUIRES to you accept it.

The Constitution eh...is that your current angle?

You do seem to be very uptight about the whole matter, I wonder why?

Does it have anything to do with the numeric and ink discrepancies in
cells 20 and 22?

Who is "UKL Lee"?

Immaterial.

Not it UKL Lee is a fictional entry.

Immaterial. Yes.

No more than the identity of any of the signators to it, no.

People must be real after all.

We can't be relying on a "john doe".

Or a "ukelelee"...

http://island-adv.com/2011/05/purpor...mas-swan-song/

So do YOU believe the "local registrar" was named "UKL Lee"?

So do you believe all the right wing Kook Aid you guzzle?

Answer the question posed please.

It's an immaterial question.

No it is not.

Yes, of course it is.

No, it is not.

You are so inherently intellectually dishonest.

You are, for hating the Constitution. The matter is settled.

You are inventing false charges as cover.

Hawaii has certified the birth certificate --

They can do as they wish, the real issue is why is a poorly photoshopped
version is being disseminated by the WH.

You're lying again. You have no understanding of pdfs. Please keep
displaying your utter ignorance.

You can't explain the difference in ink and numeral "1" in the 1961 in
cells 20 and 22.

Don't they have more important fish to fry than playing silly games with
the media and the pubic?

Yes, and that's why the case is closed.

The case can never be closed with a bad photoshop version out.

As it was in 2008 when Obama
first released his birth certificate and made history by being the
first candidate in history ever to prove his eligibility.

Incorrect, any Presidential candidate who served in the armed forces of
was a federal appointee had to produce their birth certificate for DOD.

You're not very good at this game.
--

On Jun 3, 8:33*pm, Iarnrod wrote:
On Jun 3, wrote:









On Jun 2, wrote:

On Jun 2, 11:37*am, corneal pye c...@Use-Author-Supplied-

Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-05-01 01:57 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

OK...out of curiosity.....
*How do you explain a copy of the original, posted on the White House
*website, being a pdf file with layers? *Was it generated as a pdf file 50
*years ago?
That's what happens when it's scanned. Happens all the time. You seem
flummoxed by the simplest of things.

Who is "UKL Lee"?
--

A little slow, are ya?

- - Iranrod -flash-
- - Prez Obama "BO" -says-

=Un=Snip=
Prez Obama "BO" -says- Forget the Birth Certificate
-ask- Weiner About The Weiner !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...2877dde7a24a90

On Jun 5, 10:10*am, corneal pye c...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-05 01:00 AM,Iarnrodwrote:



On Jun 4, 7:23 pm, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid *wrote:
On 11-06-04 07:40 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 4, 1:06 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid * *wrote:
On 11-06-03 10:35 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 3, 10:05 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid * * *wrote:
On 11-06-02 11:18 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

On Jun 2, 11:37 am, corneal pyec...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid * * * *wrote:
On 11-05-01 01:57 PM,Iarnrodwrote:

OK...out of curiosity.....
* * *How do you explain a copy of the original, posted on the White House
* * *website, being a pdf file with layers? *Was it generated as a pdf file 50
* * *years ago?
That's what happens when it's scanned. Happens all the time. You seem
flummoxed by the simplest of things.

Who is "UKL Lee"?
--

A little slow, are ya?

NOT an acceptable answer.

You didn't ask an actual question.

Yes I did:

Not an relevant question, fuzznuts.

Given that is the signed name of the "local registrar" it surely IS.

No, it is not at all. It is completely immaterial.

Wrong.

Right, and lack of refutation DULY NOTED.

Hawaii certified
it, and the matter is settled.

Not if they made an error.

They didn't.

The Constitution REQUIRES to you accept it.

The Constitution eh...is that your current angle?

Since 1789, ipso facto, ****-for-brains.

You do seem to be very uptight about the whole matter,

UPTIGHT??!? BWAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I am doubled over in hysterical
LAUGHTER at you stupid racist loons who prattle on like children
because you have a black president who PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that he is
a natural born citizen. I LOVE it because you're helping Obama win
another landslide.

I wonder why?

You wonder about the stupidest things.

Does it have anything to do with the numeric and ink discrepancies in
cells 20 and 22?

Nope, There is none.

Who is "UKL Lee"?

Immaterial.

Not it UKL Lee is a fictional entry.

Immaterial. Yes.

No more than the identity of any of the signators to it, no.

Wrong. Alvin Onaka's is the only relevant one.

People must be real after all.

They are.

We can't be relying on a "john doe".

You're not.

You're relying on the power of denial. You have nothing else.

Or a "ukelelee"...

http://island-adv.com/2011/05/purpor...te-signed-by-u...

Nope, nothing there.

So do YOU believe the "local registrar" was named "UKL Lee"?

So do you believe all the right wing Kook Aid you guzzle?

Answer the question posed please.

It's an immaterial question.

No it is not.

Yes, of course it is.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. Repeated assertion does not establish materiality.

You have yet to asset any evidence as to materiality. You lose. Big
time.

You are so inherently intellectually dishonest.

You are, for hating the Constitution. The matter is settled.

You are inventing false charges as cover.

You are. My charges are true, as the Constitution requires that you
accept Hawaii's certification.

Hawaii has certified the birth certificate --

They can do as they wish, the real issue is why is a poorly photoshopped
version is being disseminated by the WH.

You're lying again. You have no understanding of pdfs. Please keep
displaying your utter ignorance.

You can't explain the difference in ink and numeral "1" in the 1961 in
cells 20 and 22.

No need to.

The document speaks for itself and is certified as authentic by the
sovereign state of Hawaii and the Constitution requires that you STFU
and accept it. Case closed.

Don't they have more important fish to fry than playing silly games with
the media and the pubic?

Yes, and that's why the case is closed.

The case can never be closed with a bad photoshop version out.

The case is not only closed, there never was a case to open in the
first place.

As it was in 2008 when Obama
first released his birth certificate and made history by being the
first candidate in history ever to prove his eligibility.

Incorrect, any Presidential candidate who served in the armed forces of
was a federal appointee had to produce their birth certificate for DOD.

EPIC FAIL.

DOD files DO NOT get released to the public and prove eligibility for
the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This LIE of yours
exposes how DESPERATE you racist nutbags have become.

You CANNOT and WILL NOT produce ANY prior president's birth
certificate that was made public prior to his taking office.

You're not very good at this game.

I won. I am very good at it. You don't even know what the game is.
You're playing a non-existent game. You lose.

"Iarnrod" wrote in message
...
UPTIGHT??!? BWAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I am doubled over in hysterical
LAUGHTER at you stupid racist loons who prattle on like children
because you have a black president who PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that he is
a natural born citizen. I LOVE it because you're helping Obama win
another landslide.

Uhhmmm, what "landslide" would that be? He barely won. In your opinion can
anyone disagree with his policies without being racist? FYI, if it was
"PROVED BEYOND DOUBT " then there wouldnt be any doubt. Ergo, it wasnt
"PROVED BEYOND DOUBT ".

Joos attacked America, U S S Liberty Ship, Joos standing on that
van/truck celebrating the attacks on America, World Trade Center and the
Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.We Should cut those Joos Off HIGH and DRY!
cuhulin

On 11-06-06 12:11 AM, Iarnrod wrote:
You CANNOT and WILL NOT produce ANY prior president's birth
certificate that was made public prior to his taking office.

So what?

In the totality of things what does that matter? Isn't it nice that we
haven't had to deal with distracting crap like this more often?
--

There ISN'T ANYTHING Valid about the Born in Kenya! SCARHEAD MOFO POS
SOB FAKE ASS FRAUD USURPER! That so-called birth certificate, looks like
they (''they'') STOLD it from a baby girl who died in Hawaii and they
(''they'') FORGED it up!
cuhulin

On Jun 6, 7:53*am, "RM V2.0" wrote:
"Iarnrod" wrote in message

...

UPTIGHT??!? BWAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I am doubled over in hysterical
LAUGHTER at you stupid racist loons who prattle on like children
because you have a black president who PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that he is
a natural born citizen. I LOVE it because you're helping Obama win
another landslide.

Uhhmmm, what "landslide" would that be?\

"Uhhmmm," the 2-to-1 LANDSLIDE by which American-born Obama defeated
the republican candidate who was born in Panama.

You sound like an idiot. Welcome to my woodshed.

He barely won.

2-to-1 is not "barely," fuzznuts. Back to the short bus with you.

In your opinion can
anyone disagree with his policies without being racist?

Of course, many do. I disagree with some of them. I think for instance
that he has been way too bipartisan and that has cost him.

You are racist however if you demand his birth certificate\. Why?
Several reasons. First, he ****in' released it three years ago while
still a candidate. Nevertheless you racist nutbags ignore that and
continue to beat your breasts claiming he didn't. Yet he is the FIRST
and ONLY presidential candidate in our nation's history ever to
document his eligibility. Second, you never asked to see the birth
certificate of any white presidents. Only the black one. Ipso ****in'
facto, idiot.

.FYI, if it was
"PROVED BEYOND DOUBT " then there wouldnt be any doubt.

Indeed, there isn't any doubt. There is only rank denial and phony
outrage from you racist loons. That's not doubt....

Ergo, it wasnt
"PROVED BEYOND DOUBT ".

Actually yes, it was and there's nothign you can do about it.

On Jun 6, 9:58*am, corneal pye c...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid wrote:
On 11-06-06 12:11 AM,Iarnrodwrote:

You CANNOT and WILL NOT produce ANY prior president's birth
certificate that was made public prior to his taking office.

So what?

So Obama set an unprecedented level of disclosure and is the first
candidate ever in history to fully document his natural born
citizenship.

In the totality of things what does that matter? Isn't it nice that we
haven't had to deal with distracting crap like this more often?

So it means you have been proven wrong and you should STFU and stop
****ing on my Constitution.