• Medic8310 says:

      Maybe the “empty podium” that represented her at the debates can have him arrested…..she would refuse (she’s afraid) to show up anywhere that such an evil illegal immigrant was invited!!

  1. Tireless says:

    He’s coming to host a fundraiser for Handel. The event will be billed as “The Pathological Liars Ball”.

    • Chris says:

      Neither of those three hand to turn tail and run away from the Congress because they were about to be slammed by the Ethics Committee.

        • Icarus says:

          You seem to forget that Nathan has a complaint pending against that same ethics board.

          You remember, the one where he paid his legal fees for his federal corruption defense with funds from his state campaign account?

          • Pine Knot says:

            It was a legal expense, but I understand why some people who contributed may be irritated without knowing the whole story. Hey, Ox is gone. We can toast on that.

          • DoubleDawg3 says:

            Oh, that’s right. Wait…maybe he should have just created a “legal defense fund” to battle those liberal complaints like Karen Handel’s “Mama Grizzly” did in Alaska?

            Remember, Palin herself knows a little bit about having to use other people’s money to defend herself from ethics complaints.

            • Holly says:

              I really, really hate defending Palin. Why do y’all make me do it?

              All but one of the ethics complaints against her were dismissed. The one that wasn’t was over whether, while a sitting governor, it was allowed within the state constitution for her to have a legal defense fund. Had she set it up after she quit the office, she’d have been in the clear. Anyone can file an ethics complaint. Whether or not it’s legitimate is more the point about which we should be concerned.

              Shannyn Moore is really something. Not a bad person, but man, when she’s against you, she’s really against you.

              • DoubleDawg3 says:

                Hey, I agree “anyone can file an ethics complaint” – which is why the ones against Deal (and Handel) are non-issues.

  2. Red Phillips says:

    “No word on whether or not Nathan Deal will demand he produce his birth certificate.”

    That’s right. Because Deal, who I’m no fan of, is defined by birtherism. Not support for prescription drug benefits or No Child Left Behind (bad) or opposition to TARP or soundness on immigration (good), but birtherism. How long until Jeff and Jason chime in here also? Who cares if he supported NCLB, as long as the grandstanding anti-birther phobics aren’t tainted by the slightest whiff of birtherism all will be well. Priorities please.

    • Icarus says:

      Says the man who screams “States Rights!” the loudest until he’s asked to acknowledge that Hawaii has rights too.

      Perhaps “true conservatives” are only supposed to acknowledge the original 13 states?

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        How are Hawaii’s rights violated if the other 49 states want to know whether the guy—who is presiding over the entire nation— is a native born citizen or not?

        Anyway, the major birthers are in Arizona. Supposedly, Obama won’t appear on the 2012 ballot in that state unless he produces a birth certificate. That’s more in tune with what ‘states’ rights’ advocates are looking for, but it was a good try on your part to discredit Red. Good thing we don’t live there, huh? Those guys are going to miss out on all of Obama’s wonderful policies the next time around.

        • Icarus says:

          I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you’re not for a national ID?

          In the absence of that, your option is to take Hawaii’s word that Obama is a citizen born of that state, no matter how many times you ask for their super-secret “long form”.

          • seenbetrdayz says:

            I’m not for a national I.D., and “birtherism” is not my top-priority (there are a great many things that presidents do, natural-born or otherwise, that are unconsitutional, and done in broad-daylight, worth opposing).

            I just don’t see the harm in the people knowing more about those in government, than the government knowing more about the people. Do you?

            I mean, keep tabs on the government, ask for its papers, make it as transparent as you possibly can. “Fringe,” I suppose.

            After all, the government can pull up my birth cirtificate anytime it wants. I guarantee you that no one here bashing the ‘birthers’ will lift a finger to oppose the PATRIOT act, or any of that such nonsense. Hell, they probably know more about you than you do, but for sake of the heavens, don’t inquire anything of the government. “Mainstream,” I suppose.

              • seenbetrdayz says:

                Perhaps it is.

                I believe that the people have a right to know about the people in our government. Our situation is that we don’t. That’s the situation. Take it for what you will.

                But I’ve already stated that Arizona’s approach is better than the “Hawaii, hand it over!” approach.

                • Red Phillips says:

                  If you recall, in the only other extended discussion I have had on PP regarding birtherism (that I remember), I was right about the naturalization law that was in effect at the time of Obama’s birth. For which I am still awaiting an acknowledgment and apology. 🙂 So I would think you would be hesitant to challenge me on the facts of the matter. The politics maybe, but not the facts.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Putting long form in quotes is cute, but do you factually dispute that there is such a thing as a long form that differs from the electronic Certification of Live Birth? The officials in the state of Hawaii would be surprised to hear that.

      • Red Phillips says:

        What are you talking about Ick? I have never said a word on here about Hawaii’s role in all this. At least not that I recall, and if I did it would certainly not violate my belief in states’ rights. I’m not even a birther if birther is defined as believing Obama was born in Kenya, which I don’t. I just hate anti-birther grandstanding because it is symptomatic of a certain type of public posturing I think is harmful to the overall cause.

        What I have said is that since this has become an issue 1.) Obama should authorize the release of his long form BC and there is no legitimate reason for him not to 2.) it is natural for people to be curious and to want to see it and 3.) this intuitive desire to want to see it is the natural reflexive response and has to be actively suppressed by anti-birtherism. The logic of this is simple and unassailable. Just release the long form, and be done with it.

        The only states rights issue might be that Hawaii routinely issues the COLB. So what? More power too them. The issue here is that Obama could authorize the release of the long form if he just would. This is about Obama’s unwillingness to do so, not Hawaii’s SOP.

        And for those who dispute that Obama could authorize access to his long form, this was confirmed on my blog by Dr. Conspiracy who is a prominent Obama conspiracy debunker. It is a long post. His comment is in the replies.


        Please inform me how I am violating the principle of states’ rights.

      • polisavvy says:

        He is half white. I’m tired of this whole “birth certificate” stuff. Enough is enough.

  3. kolt473 says:

    Good bye King Roy, wonder if Obomunism will meet with ALISHA THOMAS MORGAN? wonder if she present when Cheryl Sherrod spoke? The worst racists I’ve seen so far is the left wing, suppose Obomunism will have SEIU thugs with him and his events staged as always like $lick Willie Obumunism bad news.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Just so we all know, what do you base that on? A gut feeling? It’s kind of hard to compare voting records because they weren’t voting on the exact same things.

  4. polisavvy says:

    “Obama is coming to town” — that falls in my “who cares?” category. I wouldn’t walk across the street to see him.

  5. slyram says:

    For Democrats and Republicans, the battle toward November is all hands on deck. No skipping and no fishing trips to Alaska like 1968. It’s call “Saved the date” and anyone with a D jersey must be in place when the Dem president comes into the state. If not, the detailed discussion of all candidates might find some incumbents out in the cold. Hey, as they say, no man is an island.

    • Doug Grammer says:

      He’s coming to endorse Congressman Hank Johnson if he can keep his balance and not tip over.

Comments are closed.