THE Obama lawsuit to follow

[Calabrio]

b. No the discussion won't continue long after he is sworn in?
c. No this isn't the Republican version of 'Florida'.

The definition of natural born citizen may still pop up, but it's really only academic at this point. But the COLB stuff will not continue after he's sworn in.

And no, it won't be the Republican equivalent for the dishonest, sore loser, race baiting, Democrat election stealing tactics we're referring to as "Florida".

 

[Joeychgo]

Exactly why I've become a spectator here instead of a participant. And I suspect that as soon as Fox and Dude succumb to exhaustion as I have, you'll have this place all to yourselves.

I concurr.

 

[hrmwrm]

shag, do you realize that in trying to prove fox wrong that you've lost your intellectual honesty on this whole issue? the state of hawaii has even said that obama's certificate is for real. he is in the system as being born to an american mother on american soil(unless the u.s. lost hawaii to the philippines or japan for a while) whether a certificate can be faked or not is irrelavent.

you used to put up some good viable arguements before, but now you're stretching yourself into the tinfoil hat crowd on this. restart from the beginning of this thread, and i think you'll see where you changed over the line. or you can just do your usual scoff and carry on like a nutter.

 

[fossten]

I concurr.

You concurr? With whatt?

 

[ford nut]

Exactly why I've become a spectator here instead of a participant. And I suspect that as soon as Fox and Dude succumb to exhaustion as I have, you'll have this place all to yourselves.

That would be a sad day.

You concurr? With whatt?

Its obvious.

Are we not adults here ?

Can't you just ignore someones post you don't agree with instead if adding them to some silly list ?
I ignore fossten almost every day

 

[04SCTLS]

You guys are funny :N :Bang

 

[foxpaws]

The definition of natural born citizen may still pop up, but it's really only academic at this point. But the COLB stuff will not continue after he's sworn in..

Wanna make a slight wager on that?

 

[foxpaws]

They don't need to "physically hold the document" to prove it is a fake. You are dishonestly moving the goalposts here.

Shag – after looking long and hard at your post – I will take on everything in front of this statement. The natural born citizen is an interesting debate – one I haven’t had a chance to really review.

From this statement on it is just classic conspiracy theory – and even I know that I can’t win against conspiracy theory.

This statement alone proves how far you have bought into this. I can alter anything in photoshop. Heck, I could become a 38DD . You do have to physically hold the document to prove it is a fake or if it is real. Scientific and fraud testing can’t happen without having the document in hand.

At this point you would question the validity of a decision on its authenticity from the Supreme Court if it didn’t ‘go your way’. Or, if you didn’t question the outcome of that, you would go down the road of phony, counterfeit, able to be given to dogs born on Shirlanka. This is classic conspiracy theory, and if you don’t see that, you have bought in to it. Once you buy into the conspiracy theory, all logic is tossed aside. Soon the entire government and media on Hawaii, or perhaps the entire USA, will be in on it starting from 1961.

Debating conspiracy theorists is exhausting and non productive. And actually not very interesting.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Debating conspiracy theorists is exhausting and non productive. And actually not very interesting.

Which is why I stopped 300 posts ago.

Shag is quick to point out the flaws and incoherencies in other's arguments, but is incapable of acknowledging his own violations of the same. What remains is pointless transparent insignificant noise unworthy of response.

 

[Calabrio]

Wanna make a slight wager on that?

I'd better be more clear.
Once a conspiracy takes root, it rarely every completely goes away. It still might come up on the fringe, but since it's so wholly unproductive and far fetched, it will be nothing more than a whisper. I don't think there's any credible reason to believe the he was born in Kenya, or that his mother actually traveled to Kenya while pregnant to give birth...

However, I do think the natural born citizen issue is an important one and it wasn't given the appropriate amount of attention during the election.

 

[shagdrum]

shag, do you realize that in trying to prove fox wrong that you've lost your intellectual honesty on this whole issue? the state of hawaii has even said that obama's certificate is for real. he is in the system as being born to an american mother on american soil(unless the u.s. lost hawaii to the philippines or japan for a while) whether a certificate can be faked or not is irrelavent.

I think you need to go back and read some of my posts, as well as what was reported about Hawaii's authentication by the MSM and what was actually claimed by Hawaiian officials.

They only ever said that his COLB was on file, in standing with Hawaii law. They never said anything about him being born in Hawaii, or anywhere for that matter. That is all assumptions that others have made and added to the story.

That would be a safe assumption if it weren't for Hawaii law, which allows for birth cirtificates to be issued to people not born in Hawaii (and even not born in the U.S). I have posted all the relevant passages of law that prove that.

So to assume that because he has a COLB on file, he was born in Hawaii and is a native born citizen is a huge logical leap, unless you can logically rule out all those other possibilities allowed for under the law.

If Obama were to release his COLB (the long one on file in Hawaii), then it would put all this to rest, as it would show the place of birth, date, time, everything.

There was a reason I tried to avoid the term "fake" and used the term "inauthentic" when refering to the COLB Obama's campaign showed. It should be noted that the birth cirtificate that Obama's team had is not the one that Hawaii certified. Hawaii certified that they had BO's COLB on file, so that means the one in posession by the Hawaian government. The one BO had was (according to the images shown) legally inauthentic. It was altered (parts were blacked out), so it cannot be considered authentic. The COLB even says on it that "any alteration void's this Birth Cirtificate".

you used to put up some good viable arguements before, but now you're stretching yourself into the tinfoil hat crowd on this. restart from the beginning of this thread, and i think you'll see where you changed over the line. or you can just do your usual scoff and carry on like a nutter.

And where exactly is that? Can you give examples?

I don't know if Obama is a natural born citizen. The evidence doesn't show that and doesn't show that he is not. But that is not the reason I started getting into this thread. It is because of the dishonest smear attempts by a number of people here towards anyone who doesn't simply disregard this issue out of hand. It is rude, condesending and ignorant of the facts. There is a legitimate concern here, and it should not just be disregarded.

All these labels of "kook", "tinfoil hat crowd" "conspiracy seekers", etc. is simply appalling! It ceased being an innocent, humorous little jab long ago, and it now an active attempt to smear people and marginalize them. That tactic is dishonest, intolerant, petty, and shows a huge lack of character in all who engage in it instead of actually looking at the substance of the claim and debating. There have been way to many who have engaged in that here, and it is disgusting.

 

[shagdrum]

Its obvious.

Are we not adults here ?

Can't you just ignore someones post you don't agree with instead if adding them to some silly list ?
I ignore fossten almost every day

So what would you have me do? If there was a group of people you were around and one of them was very vocal in his rude arrogant condesention and insulted all those who disagreed with him, and all he really ever offered was smears, condesention and marginalization toward those who disagreed with him,but would engage in an honest, reasonable and civil debate, would you not try to minimize your contact with that person?

That is the whole purpose of the ignore list; to maintain a level of civility on the forums.

I cannot stand when people uses smears and marginalization as a method of debate, and 'theDude' uses that as his starting point in any disagreement of a political nature, only getting more adamant from there if you challenge him on it. He also tends to bait a good deal of the time by ignoring the argument you made and forcing you to repeat it to keep debating. And this is an area that I am easily baited in, because when I see those dishonest and vindictive tactics used as a method of debate, I cannot let that stand. So the best solution, for me, is to not see them.

I have wasted countless hours constructing posts to counter him that he then ignores in part or in whole and proceeds to bait and marginalize. The best thing for me to do to avoid wasting time with him is to put him on the ignore list.

I would hope that focusing on the logic (or lack thereof) behind the arguments thrown around on this board would make the majority of people on this forum construct better argument and make for a more informative debate overall (I know it has helped my arguments a great deal). But some people can only argue with fallacies, it seems. They get down right belligerent and nasty when exposed and called on it.

 

[shagdrum]

You do have to physically hold the document to prove it is a fake or if it is real. Scientific and fraud testing can’t happen without having the document in hand.

At this point you would question the validity of a decision on its authenticity from the Supreme Court if it didn’t ‘go your way’. Or, if you didn’t question the outcome of that, you would go down the road of phony, counterfeit, able to be given to dogs born on Shirlanka. This is classic conspiracy theory, and if you don’t see that, you have bought in to it. Once you buy into the conspiracy theory, all logic is tossed aside. Soon the entire government and media on Hawaii, or perhaps the entire USA, will be in on it starting from 1961.

Debating conspiracy theorists is exhausting and non productive. And actually not very interesting.

So, if you have to physically hold the document in your hand, to prove it is real or fake, why do you accept WND's analysis? You are contradicting yourself in doing that.

And, you don't need to hold a document in hand to prove it is a fake. A physical analysis would be preferred, but that doesn't mean that an examination of a picture cannot prove it either. To argue that is to move the goalpost to an excessively high burden of proof.

If you look at a picture of two documents for comparison, one of which you know is not a fake, then any differences that stand out indicate the document in question might be a fake. Any difference must be examined.

Knowing the document's past and the claims about it can also indicate weather the document is a fake, if those claims don't check out or if signs of wear you would logically expect are not their, then the document looks like a fake. It is not hard to reach the level of "preponderance of evidence" to determine weather or not the document is a fake without physically having the document.

Either way, The COLB for Obama, as shown on any website, is not authentic because it has area's blacked out and has been altered. The birth certificate that Hawaii authenticated was not the one that Obama showed to factcheck, it was the one they had on file. And I spelled out what that all ment and where the speculation begins on that in the area you conveniently are wanting to "ignore" as conspiracy crap. That is the area that quotes actual law as well as actual quotes and spells out how limited the certification by Hawaii really is. Kinda convenient that you are gonna ignore that.

 

[ford nut]

So what would you have me do? If there was a group of people you were around and one of them was very vocal in his rude arrogant condesention and insulted all those who disagreed with him, and all he really ever offered was smears, condesention and marginalization toward those who disagreed with him,but would engage in an honest, reasonable and civil debate, would you not try to minimize your contact with that person?

That is the whole purpose of the ignore list; to maintain a level of civility on the forums.

I cannot stand when people uses smears and marginalization as a method of debate, and 'theDude' uses that as his starting point in any disagreement of a political nature, only getting more adamant from there if you challenge him on it. He also tends to bait a good deal of the time by ignoring the argument you made and forcing you to repeat it to keep debating. And this is an area that I am easily baited in, because when I see those dishonest and vindictive tactics used as a method of debate, I cannot let that stand. So the best solution, for me, is to not see them.

I have wasted countless hours constructing posts to counter him that he then ignores in part or in whole and proceeds to bait and marginalize. The best thing for me to do to avoid wasting time with him is to put him on the ignore list.

I would hope that focusing on the logic (or lack thereof) behind the arguments thrown around on this board would make the majority of people on this forum construct better argument and make for a more informative debate overall (I know it has helped my arguments a great deal). But some people can only argue with fallacies, it seems. They get down right belligerent and nasty when exposed and called on it.

Its pretty easy.
Don't spend countless hours constructing posts to debate him.
You tried.... let it go and forget about it.
Your not around him he isn't in the same room with you...in your face.
You don't have to respond to his posts.
If you can't stand his posts and don't want to read them, skip over them.
But adding him to your ignore list then putting up a post declaring that you have done so is childish IMHO

 

[04SCTLS]

The Obama conspiracists have been wrong on what will happen at every turn.
They're batting a big ZERO and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
SCOTUS will dismiss the 3rd suit without comment just like they did the first 2.
Maybe the conspiracists can start throwing shoes at Obama.

 

[foxpaws]

So, if you have to physically hold the document in your hand, to prove it is real or fake, why do you accept WND's analysis? You are contradicting yourself in doing that.

They didn't have it in their possession? It certainly read that way.

As I said Shag - nope, not going down the conspiracy theorist road on this one. Sorry -

To be angry is more bearable than to be uncertain, or to be afraid.

A conspiracist view can suppress awkward pieces of information by toying with the notion that events have been covered up by the authorities to suit their own ends.

The theory must be difficult, better still, impossible, to understand at first glance.

It must contain a spaghetti-heap of leads, all of which cannot be followed up. There must always be one more lead left to chase.

Failure is more bearable if 'the truth' is that --fill in the blank-- have conspired against you, it allows you to ignore the fact that your lederhosen are too tight.

 

[shagdrum]

Its pretty easy.
Don't spend countless hours constructing posts to debate him.
You tried.... let it go and forget about it.
Your not around him he isn't in the same room with you...in your face.
You don't have to respond to his posts.
If you can't stand his posts and don't want to read them, skip over them.
But adding him to your ignore list then putting up a post declaring that you have done so is childish IMHO

So, there shouldn't be any sort of disclosure if you add someone to the ignore list? They should be left wondering why they are not being responded to?

It seems you and I have different standards on this...

 

[fossten]

That would be a sad day.



Its obvious.

Are we not adults here ?

Can't you just ignore someones post you don't agree with instead if adding them to some silly list ?
I ignore fossten almost every day

Sorry, did you say something?

 

[shagdrum]

They didn't have it in their possession? It certainly read that way.

Who? WND? It did not read that way. They only said they conducted their own independant analysis. You are assuming that they had to have the document in their possession to conduct that analysis, with no evidence to back up that assumption.

As I said Shag - nope, not going down the conspiracy theorist road on this one. Sorry -

Now you are buying into the baseless smearing and marginalization.

To be angry is more bearable than to be uncertain, or to be afraid.

Who is angry as opposed to being "uncertian or afraid"? The only thing I am "angry" about is the dishonest and malicious smears and attacks used to justify ignoring any legitimate claim on this issue.

A conspiracist view can suppress awkward pieces of information by toying with the notion that events have been covered up by the authorities to suit their own ends.

The theory must be difficult, better still, impossible, to understand at first glance.

It must contain a spaghetti-heap of leads, all of which cannot be followed up. There must always be one more lead left to chase.

Failure is more bearable if 'the truth' is that --fill in the blank-- have conspired against you, it allows you to ignore the fact that your lederhosen are too tight.

And?
Is that the excuse you are going with to ignore any legitimate claim about this?

You have yet to prove anything with regard to what I said falls into any of these little platitudes of yours explaining "conspiracy theory", all they are is extremely vague and broad platitudes that are meaningless due to their broadness.

On the first one:
Even if the claim that there is a coverup is legitimate, the fact that someone working against that agenda is even "toying" with the idea that a coverup could be involved apparently makes his idea that of a "conspiracy kook", and worthless. That makes sense...

The second one:
If a theory is complicated it is not legitimate? another reasonable view, it seems.

The case (at least as I have spelled out) against Obama's natural born status is not very difficult. It only gets complicated when people start to mischarcterize it and you have to defend it. That is the whole purpose of obfuscation!!!

Your little line there is a bonehead standard because it allows for any idea you don't like to be labeled as the idea of a wack job conspiracy kook by simply obfuscating it enough.

On the third line:
What claim that I have made has been shown to be a dead end? Unless you allow for mischaracterization of my claims, none of them have been disproven. They have been ignored on many levels, dishonestly marginalized and have not (and probably won't) recieve their day in court.

And the forth line:
That one is so obscure as to not make any sense. I have never claimed that anyone has "conspired" to do anything here. But I don't assume that they are people of integrety either and don't have their own agenda or are incompetent or otherwise individually flawed in such a way as to lead to a less then honorable outcome.

 

[Calabrio]

Regarding the COLB-
I do think it's really odd that the Obama people have made the conscious decision to leave the issue unresolved or sufficiently unaddressed. And I think it is entirely reasonable and logical to ask why...

But the next question that has to be asked is- what are you looking for?
Do you really think that he was born over seas? Do you really think that a teenage mother flew 11,000 miles to give birth in a hut?

So, if you then conclude that it's most likely that he was born in Hawaii, what else is there to look for? Of course, you can then answer, what is hiding, but that sort of devolves into a circular argument.

The natural born issue remains unresolved, personally, I don't think the founding father's wanted anyone born with a dual-citizenship, or dual-allegence, to ever be President, and that was expressed in the constitution. You can argue that he's loyal to the U.S., but that same kind of logic can (and may well be) used to argue that a legal immigrant should have the right to be President as well.

 

[hrmwrm]

i did read through them shag. sometimes things happen when travelling, and exceptions have to be made. until i see a colb that states a person was born in the state with proof that a birth happened outside the country, your chasing assumptions.

it's not a logical leap to make, but an irrational one to chase after unless YOU have proof to the contrary. do you?

unless it can be proven that he was born out of country, or even out of state, then it's an illogical leap to ASSume he was.
so i ask, what is your arguement about? are you saying he wasn't born in hawaii, and he faked his colb? or someone thought years ago to fake the registry, thinking he might one day need to produce it for some conspiracy group?
i don't get the justification for your direction of arguement. is it just to try and back up monster mark?

as said, unless you have proof to the contrary, your blowing smoke.
and certificate number - 151-1961-010641.

i don't know how they do documentation in hawaii, but most places the 1961 in the registration number usually represents the year of registration, not the birth year of applicant. if it wasn't registered until last year, i'm sure it would be 2007 in there. so someone had some premonition that he might need it in the future and actually got him as being born in the u.s. in 1961. and saying that he was born in honolulu, oahu.
not anywhere else, and just registered in hawaii.

i mean, his mother got out a crystal ball, saw into the future, and lied about the whole thing, 47 years ago. totally illogical, isn't it?

 

[MediumD]

The natural born issue remains unresolved, personally, I don't think the founding father's wanted anyone born with a dual-citizenship, or dual-allegence, to ever be President, and that was expressed in the constitution. You can argue that he's loyal to the U.S., but that same kind of logic can (and may well be) used to argue that a legal immigrant should have the right to be President as well.

Yeah... he went splat out of a vagina and said, :q:q:q:q it, one allegiance isn't good enough for me, I want two.

God (or not,) political forums are stupid.

 

[foxpaws]

i mean, his mother got out a crystal ball, saw into the future, and lied about the whole thing, 47 years ago. totally illogical, isn't it?

Once you buy into the conspiracy theory, all logic is tossed aside. Soon the entire government and media on Hawaii, or perhaps the entire USA, will be in on it starting from 1961.

Hrmwrm - it is classic conspiracy theory - heck Shag is trying to argue against the 'warning signs' of conspiracy theory now. It happens when you buy in.

It really isn't worth discussing anything about this now with Shag - he has been assimilated.

 

[TheDude]

I cannot stand when people uses smears and marginalization as a method of debate. 'theDude' uses that as his starting point in any disagreement of a political nature, only getting more adamant from there if you challenge him on it.

Hahahaha, what a crying little liar, all this over me saying "conspiracy seeker", oh no, man-up and let it go.

If you're going to put me on ignore, do stop talking about me.

 

[fossten]

God (or not,) political forums are stupid.

No, you're stupid.