Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (34168)	3/17/2009 1:37:49 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

We have noticed an emergence of Obama apologists among the fringe of conservatism that don't want the law enforced. They are either afraid to deal with the truth or afraid of the consequences of the truth. There you go again, attacking the man instead of the argument. Horowitz doesn't have an argument. He just says let Obama serve regardless of his legal eligibility. Without logic there is no argument to attack. Obama continues to stonewall and has yet provided any legally significant evidence that he is eligible. Consider what happens IF and when he is later proven to have been a usurper. Nothing he did would have any legal standing. Every law he signed would be null and void. Every executive order would be without standing. I can't imagine a bigger mess. Presumably you might be more fond of his policies than I am. Why would you want to risk having everything he does have to get unwound from a tangled mess? Would history record him as even a worse President than Carter, or just a usurper?