Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Misuse of statistics. It would only apply if the two things were independent events. If some uses the Obama document to create the Phorgerie document, they aren’t independent.
***Interesting point, though completely invalid. Since the IBPhorgerie document is dated before the Obama document and the person involved claims to have sent it to the Obama team, the opposing conclusion is supported. And compelling.
It looks like it's Obama's plan as a minimum is to contend on every point on his citizen issue anyway for as long as he can. Obama wouldn't show that COLB in court since it's a clear forgery. Even the state of Hawaii does not take it's issued COLB's as proof in certain cases as ID because they have minimum information. And the court would not compel Obama to produce any documentary evidence that Hawaii issued, it would subpoena the state. The only plausible reason Obama is contesting this is because he believes he's not eliglble to be president.
I've seen it first hand years ago when I superimposed words over computer images.
Not invalid then. The statistics still require them to be indepenent. Even if it goes the other way, they aren't.
I mean in this specific case I haven't checked it yet. I do plan to when I get a chance.
There is a difference between “required” and voluntary action. Voluntarily producing one’s birth certificate may begin a tradition, but it does not make for a requirement.
***The required action is to qualify for the elibility of the office in this case, as set forth in the constitution. Of course, a constitutionalist would know that, and defend it as proper.
Not sure why you say it's a "clear forgery". Even if it is, it's not that obvious.
The bit about Hawaii not taking them is not true.
Another troll, running for cover after having been shown to be WRONG. Does the troll man up and start to act honorably, as would be expected by freepers? No, he didn’t. And the troll hopes that lurkers won’t realize that the proper application of what he just said is that the logical conclusion is the 2 documents are not independent, they’re utterly related, and that means the Obama team used the other forgery document as the base electronic document to generate its own version of the CoLB.
As I was saying in this last post you referenced, no one has shown anything to a court of law that they have verified or certified as evidence that has been taken up to the Supreme Court and acted upon, in terms of either preventing Obama from being in office or (as the time is running out) removing him from office.
So, you mention that there are several cases, which shows that there are others hammering away on the same idea — the idea that’s not working and the idea that the Supreme Court is not doing a thing about. I’m sure that the Chief Justice knows that he’s got a “date” to attend to on January 20th. But, that doesn’t seem to make any difference with the cases, does it...
You keep thinking that there is some evidence there — but no courts have taken it up. It’s only evidence that you’re straining at. The actual vetting process — which I’ve said has been shown to be defective (which is why we’re going through with that state law in Oklahoma, to prevent it from happening again) — that vetting process has been done with Obama, the same way it’s been done with all the other candidates in the past. Obama has been shown to be qualified under the Constitution by means of that same vetting process that has been used all along.
Now..., if you think this vetting process has been defective (which I think Obama showed it to be defective) — then — you can’t “backdate” the vetting process and get a “do-over” once it’s already gone through this defective process. The Supreme Court is not going to do a “do over” for the vetting process, once it’s all been done.
And, that’s why the process has to be corrected. But, you seem to want to get it “undone” — that which has been done the same way, all along, in the past. And — in addition — you want to get it undone, on the basis of no evidence that any court has accepted as proof of any deficiency in the Constitutional qualifications.
For what is going to happen in the future — well..., it’s sorta funny that you say that someone can’t make any kind of estimation of what’s going to happen in the future — and yet — you’ll make pronouncements about what Obama is going to do in the future. It would seem that if you know what Obama is going to do in the future (according to many things I’ve heard posted) — then I can very easily say what’s going to happen with the Supreme Court, in the future, based on their actions and also see what other courts are going to do based on their actions, too. So, it would seem that for some, it’s easy to say what Obama is going to do in the future — but — one can’t say what the Supreme Court is going to do in the future.
Well, I’ll say so — between now and the inauguration — nothing. At the time of the inauguration, Obama will be sworn in. After the inauguration, the Supreme Court will do nothing to remove Obama from office. So, if others have their say on what Obama is going to do in the future, I’ll have my say on what the Supreme Court is going to do in the future (and by plain common sense and observing what they’re already doing....) :-)
It’s also strange how some post about why the Supreme Court isn’t doing anything, and it always seems to come out to some variation that they’re playing some sort of “chess game” with Obama and they’ve got a trap laid, or it’s that they’re following some arcane procedures to remove Obama from office when he gets in office. It’s all very strange thinking... :-) It never seems to cross the minds of some of these posters that the Supreme Court isn’t doing anything with these cases — because no one “has a case” to do anything with... That’s way too easy to figure — so some have to look for something else to bolster their own lack of evidence.
And the fact that George Bush hasn’t ordered a prosecution for violation of the Constitutional requirements, simply means (as I read it), that President George Bush simply hasn’t moved on the case yet. Well, he better hurry because he’s only got a few more days. Or, maybe it’s like I heard from some posters that Clinton was going to stay in office longer — so as a variation on that, President George Bush may stay in office longer, after Obama is prosecuted and see the country through another election to make up for the last election fraud. That *is* the type of thinking I’ve seen posted here. It’s quite amazing how people really want to “stretch” things totally out of touch with reality — when they really desire something so desperately.
I would suggest an alternative, which is to get your state to pass a state law properly vetting a Presidential Candidate like Oklahoma is. That’s a state law that I’m supporting, and I sure do hope it goes through without trouble (and I think it will). I didn’t support Obama and I was happy to see Governor Palin as the Vice President, and supported her enthusiastically (she is the only thing that rescued McCain in any way, but it wasn’t enough to overcome McCain being McCain). But, I lost in the election, just like a lot of other conservatives did. And so, that meant that something else was going to have to be done. And that something else is exactly what I’ve been talking about with these state laws. This is what will prevent Obama from walking all over the vetting process, once again.
I’ve seen several posters in the past say — well, we’ve still got time for these court cases to work out. But, here we are — and they’re not working out (just like I said they wouldn’t be working out, with the lack of any kind of evidence that any court would accept). And so, I’m wondering what some posters are going to be saying after January 20th. Oh..., I know that some will say that they “keep on going” — but they’ll keep beating the horse making sure it’s still dead... that’s all.
The horse that is still running is the horse that concerns the state laws for vetting a Presidential Candidate. If we had that kind of “energy” that is put forth here — on those state laws, we would have a whole bunch of states with these laws in short order. But, I think that all these posters of this mind to get Obama out of office by the Supreme Court or other courts or some arcane documents that someone is trying to dig up — are simply going to be “tied up” down these avenues forever — and doing precisely what Obama would want, anyway — getting sidetracked and not doing anything to stop him the next time or doing anything in regards to his legislative agenda with the Democrat Congress.
Perhaps a lot of these same posters will finally get the idea that they’re gonna have to be dealing with Obama as President and that means dealing with what he could do and — thus — start working on that level. I can always hope that this is the case, but it doesn’t seem that several posters are going to get connected with that reality of what Obama is going to do in office (and he’s just a few days away from being in office, and still “nothing” has happened the way that these posters have wanted).
That is why the MSM isn’t giving the attention to the issue you feel it deserves.
***Yup, the bar for Obama is sky high... if this were McCain in the same position, having won the election but not producing his BC in the face of 17 lawsuits, 5 on the SCOTUS, the MSM would be all over it. The MSM is in the tank for Obama.
You didn't show me to be wrong. This is just another twist to attack me again.
"And the troll hopes that lurkers won’t realize that the proper application of what he just said is that the logical conclusion is the 2 documents are not independent..."
Except that all I was disputing was your use of statistics. And you've conceded the point. Rather than accept that and move on you distort things to attack me. If that's not troll behavior then I don't know what is. According to your previous descriptions of a "troll" you've been acting like one for a while now.
1. Is there any point to this?
***Yes, since the odds of these events are less than 1 in a million, that shows the issue is valid rather than a tinfoil hat conspiracy thing. There are other ways to show the issue’s validity in the face of the tinfoil hat accusation, such as the 60% of 100k people who said it was legitimate on AOL’s online poll, resident constitutional FR scholar Congressman Billybob agreeing this is a good analysis and that it’s a valid constitutional issue, and probably others.
mlo:”I don’t need to explain why people do the things they do.”
I didn’t request you to “explain” why Hawaii keeps a vault copy of birth records, I asked for your OPINION as to why they might. Do you have any conceivable idea why they might think this necessary?
My personal opinion/theory is based on evidence and statements that the Hawaiian officials have made in this case. When someone had made requests to view the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate, they responded that Hawaiian state law does not allow anyone but direct family members or the person themself to release the vault copy document.
Why would this be true unless there was additional information or verifiable information on the vault copy. The short form document does not have real signatures of doctors, parents, or other officials contemporary with the document’s origin. These are items that would be essential when evaluating the authenticity of the certificate. I am convinced that Hawaii understands this necessity and wishes to preserve the original document for future evidence.
The next claim you seem to raise is that the short form is an adequate document to prove elgibility for the POTUS. That is the primary question before us IMHO.
It really comes down to burden of proof. Is the burden upon the electorate to prove that Obama is NOT qualified, or is it Obama’s burden to prove his natural-born status. I believe this is easily answered since Obama is an applicant for a position in which there are clear requirements. In almost every case when a person pursues a position, they must prove their elgibility for the position. From what I have read, it is not clear to me that Obama has properly proven his elgibility. If Hawaii is concerned enough about the legitimacy of the short form document such that they preserve a vault copy, then it seems reasonable that the US congress or SCOTUS would also have reason to desire greater validation for the office of US President
"It really comes down to burden of proof. Is the burden upon the electorate to prove that Obama is NOT qualified, or is it Obama’s burden to prove his natural-born status."
These two things aren't related. I belive the burden of proof should be Obama's. Although the burden should be to prove it to the responsible officials, not to the internet.
But the short form vs long form issue has nothing to do with who has the burden. All that's needed to prove eligibility is that he is old enough, and was born in the US. Both of these facts are contained on the short form, making it sufficient.
As I was saying in this last post you referenced, no one has shown anything
***The dog returns to its vomit. Whoda thunk?
to a court of law that they have verified or certified as evidence that has been taken up to the Supreme Court and acted upon, in terms of either preventing Obama from being in office or (as the time is running out) removing him from office.
***You keep sayin’ it, that doesn’t make it true. But it does make you a troll.
So, you mention that there are several cases, which shows that there are others hammering away on the same idea
***And is part of the proof that this is a legitimate constitutional issue, not a tinfoil hat issue that most trolls accuse it of being. And it’s SO much more of a legitimate issue than your alien abduction garbage, which should cause the average lurker to question most of what else you say, even if there were no logical fallacies (but of course, there are dozens of them).
— the idea that’s not working and the idea that the Supreme Court is not doing a thing about.
***Ya keep sayin’ it, that don’t make it true. Troll.
I’m sure that the Chief Justice knows that he’s got a “date” to attend to on January 20th. But, that doesn’t seem to make any difference with the cases, does it...
***Sure it did. The Chief Justice forwarded Dr. Taitz’s case for conference, which is different than doing nothing.
You keep thinking that there is some evidence there — but no courts have taken it up.
***The 2nd part of your statement does not cancel out the first. There was evidence that Bill Clintoon told Gennifer Flowers to lie (on tape) but no courts took it up.
It’s only evidence that you’re straining at.
***And you’re straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
The actual vetting process — which I’ve said has been shown to be defective (which is why we’re going through with that
state law in Oklahoma,
***Whatever, an embedded paranthetical within a which statement isn’t the smartest way to get your idea across. Best of luck on that project.
to prevent it from happening again)
***Good for you, sparky. You prevent it from happening again while we work on preventing it from happening at all. Go ahead, get going...
— that vetting process has been done with Obama, the same way it’s been done with all the other candidates in the past.
***Classical fallacy — the same way we’ve always done it.
Obama has been shown to be qualified under the Constitution by means of that same vetting process that has been used all along.
***Dog returns to his vomit. Doesn’t read 20th amendment as he’s been shown directly counters this statement. Vomit eating dog is a troll.
Now..., if you think this vetting process has been defective
***Yes I do.
(which I think Obama showed it to be defective)
***Torturous paranthetical again
— then — you can’t “backdate” the vetting process and get a “do-over” once it’s already gone through this defective process.
***Logical fallacy. It’s not done. It’s in-process. But you’d have known that if you’d read the 20th amendment rather than returning to the vomit of your argument ... again & again...
The Supreme Court is not going to do a “do over” for the vetting process, once it’s all been done.
***Interesting side point. Of course, all of your logic leading up to this has been shot down, so all you’re left with is the statement, which looks kinda funny standing on its own, unsupported. Too bad the statement “once it’s all been done” is false, nullifying even that one sentence. Can’t you put together a paragraph or two without using logical fallacies or returning to your vomit, troll?
But how long can it take to click on the link I provided? The statement is in red, about a 1/3 of the way down the page. It's quite easy to find.
You mean a document electronically provided to the DailyKos or Politifact is not proof enough that he is qualified? Some posting on this thread seem to think it is.
Oh, but that bit is true since I read it from a Hawaiian DOH webpage a few days ago. However, your're in luck since I lost all my browser history and can not show you...for the moment.
Looks like mlo has been ZAPPED.
Nice find MHGinTN
That is exactly the problem many of us have with certifigate.
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.