Replies

Argumentum ad populum. If you're smart enough to know what that means, then your wrong, if not, then that also proves my point.

Oh, good grief. That's not an argumentum ad populum. Never did I say you were wrong because nobody believes you.

What I said was that if you can't even convince people here of the rightness of your cause, then you're not going to get anywhere with the broader public audience, which is FAR LESS friendly to your claims.

Here you have the friendliest audience possible, and probably something more than half of us believe you're off your rocker.

Consider that a test run as to the results you can expect elsewhere. Well, in fact, that's turned out to be a great test run. From the reception here, you might expect that the broader world is going to almost 100% treat you as lunatics. And that in fact is exactly what's happened.

So no. I never said or even implied that you must be wrong because almost nobody believes you. In fact, it's the other way around. Almost nobody believes you... because you're wrong.

You said:

We had a hammer with which to beat him easily, and you guys helped throw it away because you didn't think it would work. Well what we did do didn't work either.

People here didn't help "throw your hammer away" mostly because we didn't think it would work. (And by the way, nothing anybody did here could have possibly have stopped you from "beating him with it," if it had been as good a "hammer" as you thought it was.)

People here helped "throw your hammer away" (from here, at least) because not only was it a bunch of hooey, you were in quite significant danger of whacking fellow conservatives in the head with it.

As most legal people rely on Precedent, a wrong or misunderstood precedent will cause all subsequent lawyers/Judges to follow the same wrong path. It's like that Squadron that flew in the ground. Their leader flew into the ground, so the rest of them followed him.

The judge I mentioned didn't rule on some past precedent. He listened to everything that Orly and her super-snazzy "experts" had to say. They requested that he hear their case on its merits, so he did. And then, after doing so, he said, in effect, that they were a bunch of clowns who only imagined that they had a case.

Oh, good grief. That's not an argumentum ad populum. Never did I say you were wrong because nobody believes you.

An argumentum ad populum means "argument by people" meaning that you are arguing that you are correct (or that someone else is wrong) because a lot of people think this or that. The truth is not subject to a consensus. Pointing out how many agree or disagree does not make an argument correct.

What makes comments like this annoying are they don't really address the topic of this thread which is: "We had a chance to get him kicked off the ballot if he didn't submit his paperwork, but everybody wanted to ignore this opportunity by claiming the ballot box was the only way."

Here you have the friendliest audience possible, and probably something more than half of us believe you're off your rocker.

I would be surprised if half of Free Republic sided with your side. I am, and have always been under the impression that MOST Freepers think there is something to the eligibility issue. I have argued with many of you, and I have presented clear and easily understood arguments in support of my position, and what most of you do is immediately start talking about what this or that court says.

I have consistently asked that people look at the EVIDENCE, not what some court says about it, but what can be gleaned from one's own personal investigation into what the founders meant and intended. It has long been my position that the Courts are ABSOLUTELY WRONG on Roe v Wade, Wickard v Fillburn, Kelo v New London, and many many other cases.

They are just WRONG. Therefore I do not regard their pronouncements as infallible, especially when they are contrary to common sense and History.

The broader world isn't even aware of this issue. Most people don't know any better than to believe what they've been told for years. I don't count their opinion based on ignorance as having any significance. But let me show you the opinions of two conservative thinkers whom I respect. ( and I presume you do as well.)

George Will.

Ann Coulter.

My point was, by not helping to get this issue taken seriously by at least one state election official, you contributed to it's defeat. (The effort to get official Hawaiian documents in front of the Election officials.)

There was nothing unreasonable about this effort, but so many of you were full of hatred and bile for the "birther" issue, that you would not voice support for a piece of it even when it made perfect sense. What would it have hurt to get a State to require his proof of birth within the United States? It would have hurt nothing, and it should be the standard operating procedure whenever a candidate of uncertain providence emerges. (Like Roger Calero, who DID get kicked off ballots.)

People here helped "throw your hammer away" (from here, at least) because not only was it a bunch of hooey, you were in quite significant danger of whacking fellow conservatives in the head with it.

Yes, the effort to get some actual proof of birth in the United States from a candidate who had been telling people for years that he was born in Kenya, is obviously stark raving lunacy. Funny though, we didn't seem to mind doing it to this guy.

Orly is a scatterbrain and much of what she brought forth was irrelevant to the point. Even so, the Judge could only have relied on Precedent to ignore the actual points of law which were made. To believe other than that the Judge ruled on his understanding of Precedent is just nonsense.