Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANTPogo said:
And since the two situations are in no way comparable, your post comes off as the laughable non sequitur that it is.
Click to expand...
The "logic" behind it is not only comparable but EXACTLY the same. Official doesn't deny allegation => allegation must be true.
 
Simon666 said:
The "logic" behind it is not only comparable but EXACTLY the same. Official doesn't deny allegation => allegation must be true.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. Now, had it been a member of Obama's cabinet making these allegations about Obama, you might have some reasonable basis for comparison.

But it's not, so you don't.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Phony birth certificates,
Click to expand...
Wrong:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

Robert Prey said:
a completely un-vetted background
Click to expand...
What vetting is required?

Robert Prey said:
sealed record for college attendance transcripts, and theses
Click to expand...
Because colleges don't fall under what ever the American version of the Data Protection Act is? You do understand the difference between "sealed" and "not made public"? And where can one find YOUR records Robert?


Robert Prey said:
a background of election victories based on dirty tricks to an opponent
Click to expand...
Nope just politics same as the other side.

Robert Prey said:
crusades against American Businesss ("You didn't build that..." )
Click to expand...
Erm, your refusal to understand the intent and implication of a speech does not make it a crusade against anything. Saying that businesses that have achieved success did not do so in isolation, (for example, with out the help of their employees, creditors, etc) is not the same as being AGAINST those businesses.


Robert Prey said:
crusade against American fossil fuels -- coal, oil, etc.,
Click to expand...
Because nothing says "evil" like understanding climate change science and recognising what has happened in the past to nations (like the ones I live in) that invest their entire future in a narrow band of limited resources with out diversity.

Robert Prey said:
an admitted former dope user and probable pusher, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Unlike the last chap who had no substance abuse in his past I suppose? Oh wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy

Tell me Robert, does George Ws substance abuse make him demonic and evil as well? Or is evil partisan?
 
Here's one for all you lawyer types: What do you do when your case has been dismissed, dismissed on appeals, and rejected by both the CA Supreme court and the US Supreme Court?

That's right, you file a Rule 60 Motion for Reconsideration 2 years later! No really!

Full credit to judge Reid in Indiana who taught Dear Orly about Rule 60 motions... :boggled:
 
KDLarsen said:
That's right, you file a Rule 60 Motion for Reconsideration 2 years later!
Click to expand...

Wow. Her new evidence, requiring the court's diligent and timely attention prior to the 2012 election, is ... Shurrf Joe's sworn affidavit that he has concluded, based on all the previously submitted (and overruled) evidence, that Obama's citizenship documents are forged. I must have been asleep when "Because I said so" became a defensible legal doctrine.
 
Also, about supporting green industries:
What is wrong with supporting an industry that employs 75,000 people in America?
 
My head hurts.

How in the name of all that is holy and/or dear to people has that woman not been declared a vexatious litigant? Yes, I know she's been trying this in multiple jurisdictions, but somewhere there has to be someone in a bar association that can go "Tried the same arguements in 'x' number of courts, had all arguments and evidence demolished, keeps raising the same discredited points, is disrespectful to the court and keeps wasting valuable time and resources. Orly, we're going to use your photo as part of a legal dictionary definition now."
 
Ladewig said:
Regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as president:

If you have taken one particular side on a controversial issue in a national debate and the three most prominent people you can find to champion your cause are "Shurf Joe", Donald Trump, and Alex Jones, then it might be wise to reevaluate the evidence and reasoning that led you to that position.​


ETA: of course that advice works only when one has used evidence and reasoning to arrive at one's position in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you have given in to Poisoning the Well with your implied ad hominems on a few of the many people and the many experts who have questioned the legitimacy of the document. Such assertions are not evidence. The questions and the suspicions of fraud remain.
 
Which experts questioned the birth certificate, and what field were they experts in?
 
Robert Prey said:
I'm afraid you have given in to Poisoning the Well with your implied ad hominems on a few of the many people and the many experts who have questioned the legitimacy of the document. Such assertions are not evidence. The questions and the suspicions of fraud remain.
Click to expand...

"Poisoning the well", huh?

And how would you describe terms like "morally corrupt liberals" and "demon party"?
 
Robert Prey said:
I'm afraid you have given in to Poisoning the Well with your implied ad hominems on a few of the many people and the many experts who have questioned the legitimacy of the document. Such assertions are not evidence. The questions and the suspicions of fraud remain.
Click to expand...

A swing and a miss. I did not say you were wrong because the three most prominent people who support your positions are self-aggrandizing media clowns. I said you should examine the evidence and logic that made you arrive at that position - and you should.

Neither the current nor previous Republican presidential candidate supports your view. The RNC does not support your view. Neither house of congress has Republicans calling for investigations.

The bottom line is there are no Republicans at the national level who are pursuing Birtherism. Why is that, Mr. Prey? This is the party that claims we are in a battle for America's soul and for some strange reason is unwilling to point out the Demon Party has broken federal laws and has perpetrated the largest fraud on the American people EVER. Why are they so silent?
 
Chaos said:
Calling people who make up crap about black presidents but not white presidents "racist" is truth. Dishing out baseless attacks against anyone disagrees with you is not.
Click to expand...


Libs mantra: When you have no other answers, play the race card.

But if you want to talk racism, then there is Former KKK Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops member, former Democrat US. Sen. Majority leader Robert Byrd. Also former KKK member, Democrat Justice Hugo Black and former KKK member and Democrat President Harry S. Truman. Why don't you talk about those guys if you are so into race baiting????
 
Robert Prey said:
Sheriff Joe's chief investigator explains it all for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alVzyfptF80&feature=related
Click to expand...

And if you had done your due diligence by reading the existing 140-page thread on the subject, you would have realized that Arpaio's "investigation" has acquired no credibility whatsoever outside of the sheriff's office. You'll have further realized that courts have already heard and rejected this evidence as baseless and incompetent.

As I admonished you: kindly do not simply try to start the debate back at Square One again. You may believe Joe Arpaio hook-line-and-sinker, but the rest of the world doesn't appear to be fooled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom