You said — “That is some of the most convoluted nonsense that I have ever read on FR.”
I’ve found that things are only “convoluted nonsense” to those who simply don’t agree. To say “convoluted nonsense” seems to be a “rhetorical device” and “tool” more than anything meaningful or substantial, actually... :-)
—
But, be that as it may, you said — “We are well past the “theoretical”, stage of the game.”
There are two “spheres” that these things are operating in — “the theoretical” (involves speculation, guesses, assertions, explanations, arguments, reasonings, intense desires, etc.) — and then — the “real” (which would involve court decisions taking specified and intended actions, things as they *happen*, accomplished and “historical” actions [like winning an election, being sworn in — after that point, actions based on assertions and no opposition stopping it], and so on).
Now, all these things posted are simply the “theoretical” because they are talk, assertions, reasonings, all “in theory” because *nothing* has happened “in real life” the way the “theoretical” is demanding.
It *becomes* real — when — an court accepts whatever evidence it deems correct and true and then *acts on it*. Then it’s “facts on the ground” from that court action.
You’re still operating in the “theoretical” and have no “real facts on the ground” that show any different.
—
You then said — “The only reason that a candidate (or President Elect) would continue to fight these attempts...”
I can think of several reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications... so, until someone finds out exactly what it says, it’s still “theoretical” and not “facts on the ground” in which you can “do something” with it.
And the “do something” is not the spinning of wheels and filing cases and searching and so on — it’s the *removal from office* or the *preventing from taking office* — that’s the *doing something* that I’m taking about and what would be “real” versus the “theoretical”...
We’re all operating in the “theoretical” — while — Obama is “creating the facts on the ground” (i.e. being sworn in for one thing...).
More nonsense. Pure simple.
There are two “spheres” that these things are operating in — “the theoretical” (involves speculation, guesses, assertions, explanations, arguments, reasonings, intense desires, etc.) — and then — the “real” (which would involve court decisions taking specified and intended actions, things as they *happen*, accomplished and “historical” actions [like winning an election, being sworn in — after that point, actions based on assertions and no opposition stopping it], and so on).
Wrong. Obama has taken a course of action: from the beginning of the campaign, he decided to withhold his long form birth certificate. And now with all these challenges in the courts he has chosen to fight them rather than providing the documents in question. These are deliberate courses of action of his part; not arbitrary. Thus,there must be actual reasons he has chosen to do this.
You’re still operating in the “theoretical” and have no “real facts on the ground” that show any different.
Wrong again. See above. He has deliberately chosen to take a course of action, and even maintain this course of action in the face of all sorts lawsuits issued against him. These are a very big "facts on the ground". These actions require actual motives as well as a lot of money.
I can think of several reasons that have nothing to do with qualifications... so, until someone finds out exactly what it says, it’s still “theoretical” and not “facts on the ground” in which you can “do something” with it.
Bullsh*t. Name them.
It can't be due to financial reasons. And it can't be due to some sort of "privacy" concerns. We already know what kind of information should be on the long form. Unless, of course, he has been lying to us all along.
Conrats, you are the most boring poster on FR in both style and substance.