Replies

Life is too short for towering word walls, and I have not been following this discussion for that very reason.

Cpn Hook is one of those fellows who can say nothing in a thousand words. If he has a point in there somewhere, it is usually lost in the forest of nonsense and chaff surrounding it.

Namely, if granny D. registered Little Barry’s birth, as many believe, then there would be something on file for Obama stating he was born in HI.

There would be something on file that incorrectly indicates he was born in Hawaii. Most people assume that when you have a Hospital of birth, and a delivery Doctor, then that must mean you were born at that place and delivered by that man.

This is usually, but not necessarily true. If Obama was born in Canada, he could still have a document that "indicates" he was born in Hawaii. Grandma could have created it for him initially, and he had up to a year to be looked at by a physician and solidify the document.

So any official who said Obama’s file—however they worded it—indicated he was born in HI, would be telling the truth.

Depends on the nature of what is in the file. If it is clearly a hand written affidavit of an unattended birth, it could contain all the information currently reflected on the document, but it wasn't actually generated by a Hospital in the usual way.

This is why the caginess of Hawaiian officials is so objectionable. They ACT like they are hiding something. They could have just came out and said "That is a copy of the ORIGINAL document in our records."

They never say that. They dance around it in every way you can conceive, but they never come out and admit that it is an accurate copy of the ORIGINAL document.

Later, when the cut and paste latter-day BC was created, it would be the “original BC”—i.e.: the first actual BC he ever had. So anyone saying, ‘this is a copy of the original BC,’ would be speaking accurately, no?

That could be, but there are so many possible permutations to this thing, that it is difficult to say which one is probable or accurate. This is what we get into when we parse words with legal technicality gobbledygook.

In this case, it still hinges on the meaning of the word "original" and in what context.

This thing with Obama's birth certificates is like the critique I saw of the movie "12 Angry men." The author of the critique pointed out how the Jury foreman took each piece of evidence and showed that it was not necessarily conclusive that the defendant committed the crime.

What the movie glossed over was the PATTERN of evidence simply defied credibility. That all of it together implied an unbelievable chain of improbability for the defendant to be not guilty.

And thus is it with Obama's legitimacy. They try to hide too much, and too strenuously, and then spout all sorts of legal technicality crap as to why they shouldn't have to prove his legitimacy.

Again, like the Defendant in 12 angry men, this is a asking too much of credibility to think he's innocent.

Thank you for that informative answer! It was quite insightful, and gave me a much better grasp of the various issues in question. After explaing a number of finer points involved in the BC/language parsing discussion [the kind of parsing that, incidentally, Bill Clinton turned into an art form, while his fellow pols took copious notes] you touched on one of my long time obot issues.

Namely, their obsessive compulsive, outright pathological need to compartmentalize. On this point, your analogy is SUPERB. I can’t recall how many pieces of incriminating evidence there were in Twelve Angry Men. It’s not relevant. What IS relevant is the practically unquantifiable # of issues, contradictions, conflicts, anomalies, black holes, abnormalities, irregularities, misdirection, sealed records and outright lies associated with Obama and his murky past. I doubt anyone has the time to amass them all, categorize them, and maintain an up to date list. The volume is simply staggering.

Yet here’s the thing. Normally an obot will tell you there are no problems of any kind with Obama’s past/history and records. But if a conservative pounds away at one of the issues to the point that not even the obots can deny it, they will smugly declaim to each other, “It’s all they’ve got.”

Then a few weeks or a month down the road, if a totally different issue gets pounded, guess what? They obots say, “Hehe—it’s all they’ve got.”

Iow, obots are incapable of storing ANY issue re Obama and his records, etc, in their minds/memories. Rather, their brains are like etch-a-sketches. Every time they are confronted with sufficient evidence to establish a problem, the whistle past the graveyard with, ‘it’s all they’ve got.’ Then they shake their etch-a-sketch and immediately forget that problem ever existed.

And so ad infinitum. If they had sharper minds with analytical capability, they wouldn’t be obots. As with your Twelved Angry Men analogy, they would quickly realize there are just too many issues, FAR too many. But given their instant-amnesia approach, their default is to see no problem at all, and only under duress do they even resort to, ‘it’s all they’ve got.’

I’ve said it before. No wonder they’re obots. With minds like that, what else could they be?

‘[Name] is one of those fellows who can say nothing in a thousand words. If he has a point in there somewhere, it is usually lost in the forest of nonsense and chaff surrounding it.’

I stopped reading this individual’s posts when it became clear that all he has is some rote material in one very narrow area. If he ventures outside his tightly bounded specialty he is a fish out of water, flopping and flailing hopelessly. Since reading the same rote comments repeated over and over indefinitely is boring, I skip his posts lock, stock and barrel.

I’d ask you to ping me if he ever says anything fresh or interesting, but I know there is no point. He has learned his lesson about straying from his one and only narrow, repetitious topic, and will not a second time attempt to sound coherent on a different, more general subject. (I do give him this, however: he recognizes his limitations. That’s more than some can do, anyway.)