Posted on 02/17/2010 10:00:07 AM PST by opentalk
My circle of friends and professional colleagues includes many noteworthy persons; lawyers, scientists, doctors, business owners, etc. Many of them are my Mensa buddies. None of them are crazy and none of them are stupid. Some of them are smart enough to avoid politics altogether.
Those who do keep up with political issues agree that there is something really fishy about Obama’s history. So when we see the irrational “head in the sand” avoidance of the obvious lack of full disclosure we wonder what motivates people to NOT want to know the truth. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note to Erickson, Breitbart, O'Reilly and Beck: At a minimum, Obama has not been fully candid with the American people about his birth certificate. Giving him a pass for that is wrong. The bad news is that you blinked. The good news is that Abraham Lincoln was right:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
--Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member. Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research.
also from link,comments.
"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.
Which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
I do not trust O’Reilly. I think he’s a closet lib.
And you have seen his birth CERTIFICATE? Not that "certification of live birth" crap. The ORIGINAL LONG FORM. Why doesn't he just post the "original" birth certificate on line showing the hospital and doctor and other information that is normally shown on all birth certificates?
Mr. Mensa should also know NOT to split his infinitives.
1. Right now, I would just be satisfied with Obama coming out and announcing to all the world the name of his 1961 birth doctor so that the good doctor and his family can rightfully enjoy all the public glory and public rewards that a doctor who delivered a president of the united States should receive.
2. But surprisingly, dear old Obama has been conspicuously silent when it comes to publicly giving us his 1961 birth doctor's name.
3. Why is dear old Obama denying his 1961 birth doctor and his family all the public praise and rewards that a doctor who delivered the sitting President of the United States should be entitled to?
4. For instance, the doctor and his family could appear all over the television on such shows as Larry King, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck.
5. The good doctor could write a best-selling book about his experiences as a doctor at Kapiolani Hospital, the hospital where Obama says that he was born.
6. The good doctor could have a TV-movie made of his life, and he and his family could become rich and famous from books and movies.
7. The good doctor's family could have members who are important or not so important people today, people who could use the financial rewards and publicity that would come to them when Obama publicly announced the name of his 1961 Hawaii birth doctor.
8. But poor Obama, he is so silent about the name of his birth doctor.
9. So, again, why is the President of the United States behaving in such a terrible way and setting such a poor example to the people of the United States?
10. Could this be the reason: There is NO doctor name or hospital name on Obama's 1961 long form birth certificate?
11. Yes, that is the reason, in my opinion.
Then they would know that it is, "None of them is crazy and none of them is stupid."
*****
Is it possible that BOTH you and the mensa member could be CORRECT?
According to the following statement I found on the internet after reading your message above, it seems that BOTH of you could be correct:
"A common misconception is that none must always be treated as singular. The customary support for this view is that none necessarily means "not one" (implying singularity); in fact, "none" is just as likely to imply "not any" (implying plurality).
As noted in The American Heritage Dictionary: "the word has been used as both a singular and a plural noun from Old English onward. The plural usage appears in the King James Bible as well as the works of John Dryden and Edmund Burke and is widespread in the works of respectable writers today."
The most sensible rule is the one that governs similar words designating a portion of something (fractions, percentages, and indefinite pronnouns such as some, most, many, all, and more). Just as we write "some of it is" or "two-thirds of it is", we would write "none of it is"; just as write "some of them are" or "two-thirds of them are", we would write "none of them are."
Idiomatically, few of us would be comfortable with "None these people is happy" or "None of my friends is going with me." The sense here is plural: not any. Yet the myth of the singularity of none persists, even among people who frequently say, "None . . . are." (Why is it that some people cling to a simplistic rule, even when it's wrong, rather than face the necessity of making a choice based on sense?)
When the sense is plural (as indicated by a plural noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase – "none of [plural entity]"), none is plural; when the sense is singular (as indicated by a singular noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase – "none of [singular entity]"), none is singular.
Futhermore, we may have some instances in which either is correct. The American Heritage Dictionary notes: "The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial." And that is true because the sense of none may be construed here as either "not one" or "not any."
Two last points are worth noting. It is difficult to avoid treating none as a plural when it is modified by almost – "Almost none of the children were [not was] well-behaved." And, in constructions such as "None but a few of the students were able to complete the test," none must be treated as a plural."
Widespread polling trends prove that doubts about what Obama is hiding in his HI vital records is growing.
Obama may have gamed the courts, but he is losing in the court of public opinion as one lie after another from Obama regarding his COLB (and his whole agenda) have been exposed.
First it was Gibbs and Matthews pointing to the Factcheck COLB and saying “There's the BC!”
When it was pointed out by Lou Dobbs that the COLB was not an original and there was no birth location, doctor or hospital specified a CNN VP ordered Dobbs to report that the original was destroyed.
HI DOH was then forced to immediately deny destruction of any originals and confirm that Obama’s original HI vital records still existed.
Then it was claimed that “only the short-form COLB” could ever be released, but that is also not true.
What is true is that Obama has refused to authorize HI DOH to release his original vital records and every day that goes by more and more Americans come to understand this truth, and that is what the polls reflect.
Maybe some of the information and posts on the Internet are hitting too close for comfort. Also, as the -another normal person -(Obama person) pointed out. They may be concerned about a movement to force transparency of records.
We seem to have a paid Obamabot trying to fly under the radar here. He’s been here 5 days and he only comments on are birth certificate threads. Mighty narrow interests I’d say.
And you have seen his birth CERTIFICATE? Not that “certification of live birth” crap. The ORIGINAL LONG FORM. Why doesn’t he just post the “original” birth certificate on line showing the hospital and doctor and other information that is normally shown on all birth certificates?
Smart people can’t be loons?
I would like to introduce you to the English Department at Yale University someday.
bump
That's funny. You do realize that if he did this, the birthers would simply be screaming forgery and finding some unqualified hack to make confused statements about pixels.
The man is hiding his past? Why? Guess we can’t ask his “white” grandmother. She died on the eve of the election.
“You do realize that if he did this, the birthers would simply be screaming forgery and finding some unqualified hack to make confused statements about pixels.”
It’s way crazy to think Obama may be hiding the records of his schools and medical history just because every other presidental canidate (except Clinton because of the bent penis thingy and VD) has made these records available to the public! That is how we know stupid Bush did better in school than smart Gore but, you are right, how do we know we know????/s/
So what difference did it make that Gore and Bush released their college records anyway? They should not have done it and then we would know we don’t know and everything would be solved!/s/
The afterbirthers are actually afraid to force Obama to present these records because they know there would be problems they are too freaking unstable and disloyal to deal with. People who ask normal and intellegent questions in the tradition of a normal and intellegent questions always asked in the selection of the President is just extreme and nutso! It is much more sane and moderate to not ask the questions./s/
I have noted a similar patern on nearly every other thread concerning Obama’s eligibility. There is almost alway some person who has been posting for less than a month calling people “birthers” and going straight down the Obama talking points. There may or may not be claims on their profile to be veterans, or have other background information that would make most of us hesitant to criticise them very harshly. Everyone has a right to their opinion but I am beginning to think we have an ‘Ellie Light’ type of pr firm stalking the forums. I am sure the moderators are keeping an eye on the pattern.
another normal person Since Feb 12, 2010
My be part of the new David Plouffe communication strategy to squash any criticisms asap
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.