"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
On 8/29/2011 3:08 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:59:48 +0700, john
wrote:


Go back and read the quotation - which was the court's not mine. You
will see that the court felt that unless the order is "manifestly
beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as
to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness" it is up to the
Troops to obey.

When it is proven that the Commander in Chief is not legally allowed to
make those commands, its within the duties of each military member to
refuse them.

No further reading is necessary.

Unless you think the Nuremburg Trials were a farce?

The birthers are a farce. Mr. Obama has been proven, many times over and
by many independent means, to be fully eligible to be president. And fully
capable compared to what the republicans offered in the same election.

That, more or less, is what I understand as well. It seems that those that
prefer to not agree with the findings claim fraud, then refer to everything
and anything that is offered as "proof" that comes from like minded people,
as if, somehow, enough people say it isn't so, that's the way it becomes.

Net result?

They muddy the water, making it difficult, if not impossible, for those that
seek the truth to make that determination. Anything provided that is
credible is discredited. How in hell can anyone make a proper conclusion?

The only option open to me is to tune them out. As I've said on more than
one occasion, the moment the least bit of controversy is discovered to be
untrue, from that moment forward, the comments of those that won't leave it
alone become suspect. Credibility is lost----and, in my case, lost for
good.

Harold