Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
I'm sorry, when did you receive your HIPAA compliance training? I received mine in 2006 and was certified by the compliance officer of UnitedHealth Group. You know, that big insurance company.

Birthers have this odd, unique habit among conspiracy theorists of trying to invent and rewrite laws to make it seem like others are behaving inappropriately in "hiding" Barack Obama's records.



Hair split. What does the non-summary portion of the law state?

As any compliance officer will tell you, you can't just walk into a state archive (or anywhere) and demand willy-nilly to see PHI-qualified vital records, even if you are a police officer. What, according to your copious HIPAA compliance training, is the appropriate procedure for LEA access to PHI? And further, even if you do have the appropriate warrants, a state-certified copy suffices; not the original record only.

And finally, as has already been belabored, there is no legal standing to the investigation into forgery. So there is no legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
Click to expand...

Baloney.
 
EventHorizon said:
I'm very confused by this statement. Have you still not learned the definition of ad hominem? Throwing out fancy terms does not help you if you don't know their meaning.
Click to expand...

It's attacking the person as opposed to the substance of the evidence. Get it now?????
 
ANTPogo said:
Yes, and every change in the PDF that Zatkovich can actually identify is, as he clearly states, consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document, and not forgery.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/23839886.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

"...possible the document was also changed." Why do you choose to only cite the stuff you want to cite and forget the rest of it???You just got impeached by your very own qualified "expert."
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Sorta quite clear. The Constitution didn't define "natural born Citizen," so we've had to do that by statute a couple of times in our history.
Click to expand...


Imprecise language on my part. I meant that there clearly are requirements to hold the office of President written into the Constitution. Your observation that one of the requirements is open to some interpretation is of course correct.

JayUtah said:
From the Framers' writings we learn that the motivation for the natural born citizen requirement was to prevent deposed European aristocrats in the late 18th and early 19th centuries from rising too high as elected executives in the United States and re-establishing their aristocracy. When the topic was most lately revisited in the late 1800s, the danger was still considered real enough to leave it there.
Click to expand...


When I was young, my father, a (now retired) high school history teacher, told me that this requirement was specifically aimed at Friedrich Wilhelm von SteubenWP; however, I've recently learned that this wouldn't have worked, because Steuben had been naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution, and thus was "grandfathered in" as eligible.

JayUtah said:
think the original rationale is moot. I think there is motivation for requiring the President to have shown some significant allegiance to the United States by being a long-time resident and citizen, more so than for a member of Congress (whose power as individuals is limited).
Click to expand...


Excellent point.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's attacking the person as opposed to the substance of the evidence. Get it now?????
Click to expand...

When a person has made a claim to be speaking from a position of authority, then two of the more common informal fallacies no longer apply in the same way: the appeal to authority is no longer an informal fallacy if the person's claim to authority is upheld, as this now makes it a legitimate appeal to authority; and dispute over the person's claim to authority is never a fallacious ad hominem argument, as the claim to authority itself has become a premise.

Dave
 
Robert Prey said:
"...possible the document was also changed." Why do you choose to only cite the stuff you want to cite and forget the rest of it???You just got impeached by your very own qualified "expert."
Click to expand...

The "rest of it" is that his opinion is that the "changes" are normal and consistent with the preparation of a document for web publication. You lied when you told us the people on that list agreed with Mara Zebest that the PDF document was forged. This expert does not reach that conclusion, and in fact reaches the opposite conclusion. Why did you leave that part out -- you know, the important part?
 
Dave Rogers said:
You're suggesting that the hospital that issued the birth certificate should then disclose the information on the birth certificate because it suspects itself of having forged a birth certificate? That's a remarkable level of doublethink even for a conspiracy theorist.

Dave
Click to expand...

NO. Not unless that person was Mother Teresa.
 
Dcdrac said:
so Mr Prey the only real expert in your lsit ascutally has said that the document is not a forgery, the one that is a typesetter now refuses to testify there was a forgey.

Can you not see your stack of cards collapsing?
Click to expand...


No. An expert knows very well that his job is to address the substance of an issue, not to draw conclusions.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. Not unless that person was Mother Teresa.
Click to expand...

So, in Robert Prey bizarro world, nobody but Mother Teresa can know whether they forged a document themself?

I think you ought to turn yourself in to the authorities. There's no telling what criminal offences you ought to be suspecting yourself of, given that you're not Mother Teresa so you can't actually be sure you haven't committed them.

Dave
 
Mr Prey the only real expert on the list you provided does nto support your contentions.

So all you are left with is your unsupported and unproved opinion.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's attacking the person as opposed to the substance of the evidence. Get it now?????
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that you steadfastly refuse to understand how expert testimony works.

Attacking the person's claim to knowledge, on which the allegedly expert testimony is based, is not "attacking the person."

Your argument is: "This person his highly qualified; his opinion is evidence."
My rebuttal is: "This person is not highly qualified; therefore his opinion is not evidence."

The "substance of the evidence" in expert testimony is the knowledge and judgment allegedly possessed by the witness, which unqualified people do not possess. Unless there is legitimate expertise, there is no substance. Get it?
 
Travis said:
I disagree. If the Constitution had a provision which stated that no one who had ever been named "Steve" could serve as president and we actually kicked someone out of office when it is discovered he was originally born named "Steve" but his parents changed their mind when he was still an infant and renamed him Thaddeus I think history would look upon us rather poorly. Sure we obeyed the law but the law was clearly stupid.

No different than with this birth requirement.
Click to expand...


Again, I maintain that the answer to "stupid" (or outdated) laws or Constitutional provisions is to change them, rather than just pretend they don't exist. To ignore certain provisions of the Constitution merely because some find them unfair or or outdated is to set a very bad precedent, IMO.
 
Robert Prey said:
"...possible the document was also changed."
Click to expand...

Possible, but Zatkovich cannot identify why or even how that might have been done, since (as he himself says), the only modifications he was able to identify were perfectly consistent with a simple enhancement of the document for legibility.

Why do you choose to only cite the stuff you want to cite and forget the rest of it???
Click to expand...

You claimed Zatkovich was one of the "many other highly qualified exerts that come to the same conclusion of Fraud in the COLB document and state their reasons which are essentially consistent with the analysis of Mara Zebest."

You were wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom