Another round of you claiming "distraction", "obfuscate" and logical fallacies, joy.
Yes, and you, as usual, want to ignore such concerns. Illogical arguments should rain, according to you, apparently.
The question isn't irrelevant, you're saying he should release it, as to put the suspicion to rest; he has released it; it's been verified, you just don't agree with those doing it.
First: He has not released it. I dare you to prove otherwise. What he released was a short for, copy. Not official. It cannot be official because it has been altered. And I am talking about the long form original that Hawaii has verified that they have on file.
Second: you can keep asserting all you want, but unless you can logically demonstrate that any answer to that question would some how either vindicate or discredit the argument that Obama should release his official (long form) birth cirtificate, then the question inherently shifts the focus away from what this debate is about (
weather he should release his birth certificate) and changes it to something else (
who he should release his birth certificate to).
In regards to the question itself: instead of assuming that I automatically have to answer it; you should consider the fact that you need to justify the question as relevant. You haven't offered anything to justify that specific question. All you have offered is a restatement of the question (as well as personal attacks for not answering it), and then questioned
weather Obama should release it
It's very telling the way you dance around this question, after YOU made the claim.
Oh? And what does it tell?
The truth is that it is rather telling the way you keep bringing it up as a tool to smear me with, but refuse to justify it's relevance (or even consider the fact that it is irrelevant and an obvious attempt to shift the focus of the debate).
Again, you said he should release it to some department in Hawaii, so which one?
What I stated was that he should fill out the appropriate paperwork
and publicly call on the appropriate department to release it; not release it to them. Don't mischaracterize me (something very hard for you to do). But we wouldn't want to take away one of your best tools for making a convincing argument. We can't expect you to do that through making a logical argument.
The department I was referring to would be whichever one has the long form COLB. I think that is the Health Department, but I am not sure.
Don't make a claim that he should do something, when you don't have an answer as to who he should release it to and why he should release it [again] in the first place (can you answer either of these?).
Now you break the two ideas of '
who he should release it to' and 'why he should release it'. You are acknowledging the fact that they are two separate ideas. FYI; you just strengthed my point about your question being irrelevant and an attempt to distract.
And I have more then answered the question of '
why he should release it' in this thread. But, you can't be expected to be honest and acknowledge that, can you.
Same goes for your claims about releasing it to 'factcheck groups' and 'the big names who are asking for it', as no on is asking for it. You made these claims, back them up, or STFU (as you say). Which groups, which big names?
Citing (or not citing) specific groups does not in any way strengthen or work against any statement I made about releaseing it to 'factchecking groups'. IT is simply an attempt by you to ignore my answer by raising the goalposts.
You are countering youself all over this post!! You acknowledge that my distinction between weather and who is correct, but then premise the rest of the argument on the assumption that they are the same. You also claim I didn't answer your question, but then keep breaking down my answer.
All you are, obviously, doing is breaking down my answer to keep claiming that it isn't enough and move the goalposts to raise the burden of proof. Even if I were to name a specific department and/or factcheck group, you could keep going and ask for the specific person, office number address, DOB, etc. etc..
It is an obvious dishonest trick on your part.
Instead of working to keep the burden of proof on everyone else through dishonest mean, have you ever realized that occasionally, in any argument, the (evidentiary) burden of proof falls on you? Or are you choosing to ignore that?
I would happily answer your Starbuck question, if I made a claim about Starbuck to begin with; I didn't now, did I. See how that works? (also, I've never watched the new BSG)
Well then, all your claims about the Obama COLB are discredited. You are clearly dodging the question. You could very easily go look up who they are, and make a choice. :shifty:
"Legitimate constiutional issue here that needs to be clarified" If this is true, then someone of proper authority should request he do so, has anyone done this?
Another leading/loaded question....
It is a legitimate constitutional issue, and someone in proper authority should look into this. But Simply because no apparently has, does not logically say anything about the legitimacy of the claim.
"Obama says he wants a transparent and open administration and government. If he will not release the COLB when it is a constitutional requirement for his job and there is a legitimate question as to his status" He has released it already; it's been given the clear. No one else of authority is asking for it, so why should he just do something he already has done?
Another loaded question. It assumes things that are not agreed uppon by both sides of this debate.
Again, he has
not release an authentic COLB. He has released a copy (if not a fake) that has been altered and cannot legally be considered authentic.
Is it really too much to ask that you not be decietful, dishonest, smear and obfuscate?! Is that really too much to ask of you?
