Replies

The facts remain to this day — no one has produced any evidence that any court is acting upon, or any evidence that any court has verified, or any court is taking any kind of action towards removing Obama from office. It’s simply not happening. I mean, if something was happening to remove Obama from office, we would all know about it. All we’ve got is simply a lot of people *very opinionated* about what *should* happen — but *nothing* is happening in a practical way (i.e., “removing Obama”...), nothing at all.

Now, the fact that nothing is happening — that the cases are either dismissed, appealed, up for hearing, sent back to lower courts (and “on and on”), plus the Republicans (about every last single one of them) doing nothing, including the President of the United States, and Vice President Cheney, plus McManiac, and his running mate, Governor Palin, and neither the Electoral College voters, or the Congress certifying the vote, or Cheney in accepting the results, or the Supreme Court in not granting any injunctions to stop the inauguration, or the Justice Department in not taking any action to prosecute Obama (and on and on it goes, the list is “big*) — this all leads these *very opiniated* people (and posters) to say — “Oh, they just won’t do their jobs!”... LOL... Now, that’s a “conspiracy-mindedness” for sure...

You see..., the very basic problem that all these very *opinionated posters* have is that there is a *hole* in our vetting system that Obama walked straight through — and you can’t close the barn door after the horse has gotten out — and do any good. You’re chasing down a losing battle for something that is “way past that point” now. That’s your problem....

And that’s what gives others something to “point to” and say, “will you look at that conspiracy stuff...”

There’s just a huge *disconnect from reality* here with some posters going down this track. That’s all I can say about it. You’re letting your *desires* for getting Obama out of office try and “create a reality” where no such reality exists in real life.

Now, you mentioned something about damage to the Constitution. That’s another wild idea that can’t happen without going through “procedures” that will *have to be followed*. You can’t change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it. And it usually takes years (sometimes 7 or more years) to go through the process. And all Amendments to the Constitution just don’t breeze through such a public vote in the various states. So, it’s even crazy to say that Obama is going to do something with the Constitution when you have to get 3/4 of the states to ratify any Amendments.

This is another “unreal’ wild idea that some people are promoting. Nothing is going to change with the Constitution — without the states ratifying it. And I don’t see the states ratifying any changes that mess with the Constitution.

And then you were saying something about the Supreme Court’s job is to make sure Obama is either not in office or taken out of office (whichever way you mean it). Well, the Supreme Court is not going to act upon *anything* like that in regards to Obama, unless there is a specific case before it. And all the cases before it — none of them have a thing to do with a “remedy” of removing a candidate. At most, someone may get standing, and it goes back to a lower court. In the instances where the Supreme Court was actually asked to intervene and block the Electoral College Votes and certification or prevent Obama from being inaugurated, by means of some injunction — the court did *no such thing* — and they’re not going to do any such thing. Y’all are imagining that the Supreme Court is like some John Wayne cowboy, riding in there, both guns blazing and “taking out Obama”... That’s the idea that you’re presenting with these wild schemes about how the Supreme Court is going to act. It just gets more crazy all the time, when your *desires* are so intense that you can’t separate them from *reality* and how *things work* in the real world.

There’s a huge *disconnect* from reality here.

That’s why I’ve said all along to use the method that is most likely to succeed and it’s already working in Oklahoma, even before Obama is even in office. So, that makes a lot of sense to me and is connected to the “real world” in this situation...

"But, you can’t say that getting a piece of legislation through the Oklahoma legislature, with it already having been sponsored and put in the works, right now — is conspiracy stuff — because that’s “real world” politics and putting real world legislation in place that can “close up the hole” that Obama walked straight through."

This is important. There's probably something we can all agree on here. Someone said to me, be part of the solution. The question is, solution to what?

Well if there's one certain fact revealed by all this it's that there should be a defined procedure for qualifying candidates for constitutional offices, and they should be required to prove their qualifications and not just swear to them.

I would love to see a law like this proposal in Oklahoma pass in every state. As a practical matter, we only need it in a few states, or even just one big one.

If you want to be part of the solution, push to get this done.

The facts remain to this day — no one has produced any evidence that any court is acting upon,
***Ahhhh, now we start to see the qualifiers upon your original statement, which I properly identified as trollish. Otherwise you wouldn’t be putting qualifiers on it. As far as acting upon, there has been 5 forwards for conference, which by my earlier analysis is a 0.3^5 chance of happening for any case, less than 2 tenths of a percent chance.

or any evidence that any court has verified,
***That’s because they all see a huge political hot potato that no one wants to deal with so they push it up the chain citing “lack of standing”.

or any court is taking any kind of action towards removing Obama from office.
***Argument from silence. You don’t know this is true. Yet.

It’s simply not happening.
***Again an argument from silence. Typical of trolls like you.

I mean, if something was happening to remove Obama from office, we would all know about it.
***Straw argument. First, you can’t remove him from office until he’s in office. Second, the proper procedure is to go through the SCOTUS and we all DO know some of it. Third, there are things we can’t know and your continued arguments from silence of what we cannot know — your presumption that we would know it — is continued evidence of your trollhood.

All we’ve got is simply a lot of people *very opinionated* about what *should* happen
***Nothing wrong with that, being very opinionated on a constitutional forum regarding a constitutional crisis. What is your freeping problem?

— but *nothing* is happening in a practical way (i.e., “removing Obama”...), nothing at all.
***Again with that “nothing” thing. Soon you’ll need to qualify that statement because you’ll realize it shows you to be a troll engaging in hyperbolic straw argumentation. Don’t you ever argue legitimately? Take a critical thinking class, Mr. Alien Abduction Troll. As far as the rest of your post, it’s too long winded so I’ll be breaking up the response into separate paragraphs.

We've missed you.

A new law in each state certainly is one solution. Up to this point the legislative branch of government has not dealt with the issue. If indeed it is their job.

The SoS certainly did not have it in their job description. It may have to go back to the judicial branch to determine consistency and who is responsible to vet the candidates.

It was that reason that we turned to the judicial branch. Did I ever give you the letter I sent to the SCOTUS. Here's a taste, I think we agree.

Our Forefather’s in their wisdom established our government in three parts to check and balance each other. They specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president. You have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately they did not establish who would vet each candidate to determine eligibility.
Nor did they establish “standing” if such a case were ever to be presented.. Standing , a arbitrary term established for the smooth working of the judiciary system, is not a condition established by the Constitution
... “We The People” are about to be in crisis if you chose to ignore these cases. We the People all have standing.
The SCOTUS must put this crisis to rest. ... A “rule of Law” one way or the other must be decided. The Constitution must remain intact, only qualified persons shall hold the office of the Presidency.

Now, the fact that nothing is happening
***Again the hyperbolic straw argument, you might want to start couching your terms and adding qualifiers... troll.

— that the cases are either dismissed, appealed, up for hearing, sent back to lower courts (and “on and on”),
***If cases are up for hearing or sent back to lower courts, how is that “nothing”? It isn’t. Geez, take that critical thinking class.

plus the Republicans (about every last single one of them) doing nothing, including the President of the United States,
***Not his job, it’s the SCOTUS’s job.

and Vice President Cheney,
***See above. Gee, you’re long winded.

plus McManiac,
***This statement is just freeping precious. I’ll just keep it at that in the hopes that you continue to pursue this angle.

and his running mate, Governor Palin, and neither the Electoral College voters,
***At least one EC voter published his thinking on this topic, and another said he’d be filing an affidavit in one of the cases against Obama. I don’t know if he ever did.

or the Congress certifying the vote,
***Yeah, right... the democratic congress. Geez, you really are clueless, aren’t you, Alien boy?

or Cheney in accepting the results,
***Count me among the disappointed but see above, it’s the SCOTUS’s job.

or the Supreme Court in not granting any injunctions to stop the inauguration,
***Read the 20th amendment. Qualification happens after he becomes president elect and before the inauguration, which is right now. They waited until Berg had standing and sent it back to the lower courts to deal with.

or the Justice Department in not taking any action to prosecute Obama
***Not their job. yet.

(and on and on it goes, the list is “big*) — this all leads these *very opiniated* people (and posters) to say — “Oh, they just won’t do their jobs!”... LOL... Now, that’s a “conspiracy-mindedness” for sure...
***That’s not a conspiracy. It’s an observation of human nature. No one wanted to cross Al Capone when he was operating, because the repercussions were obvious. So are the repercussions to crossing zer0bama if he were to become president, the most powerful person in the world.

But, if someone says (like me, for example), “Oh, a state law to properly vet a candidate with specific documentation or they can’t get on the ballot — is needed and we’ve got one going in Oklahoma right now...” — that’s definitely a “troll” and a “disruptor”... (can it get any weirder than that??).
***Now you’re being disingenuine because I encouraged you in that effort. I said that your argument is a classic fallacy to assume that our efforts are mutually exclusive of yours. Go and do that thing you think will be so effective and we’ll stick to our plan. The fact that you continue to operate on these threads shows that you ARE a disruptor.

You see..., the very basic problem that all these very *opinionated posters* have is that there is a *hole* in our vetting system that Obama walked straight through — and you can’t close the barn door after the horse has gotten out — and do any good.
***We’re in the middle of closing the barn door right on the horse. Giving up now and disrupting us defenders of the constitution is outright cowardice and trollish.

You’re chasing down a losing battle for something that is “way past that point” now. That’s your problem....
***Tomorrow SCOTUS reviews Berg AGAIN. That is not “way past”, that is STILL PENDING. Go do your thing, troll, we’ll see you in 4 years. If we need you.

And that’s what gives others something to “point to” and say, “will you look at that conspiracy stuff...”
***Oh, and the alien abduction stuff is so above board and “without a doubt”. Geez, you’re a loon.

But, you can’t say that getting a piece of legislation through the Oklahoma legislature, with it already having been sponsored and put in the works, right now — is conspiracy stuff — because that’s “real world” politics and putting real world legislation in place that can “close up the hole” that Obama walked straight through.
***I have encouraged you in that effort. Learn to read. But the hole is not closed up until January 20, so why don’t you just get lost until then?

There’s just a huge *disconnect from reality* here with some posters going down this track.
***That’s just freeping hilarious, coming from an alien abductee dude.

That’s all I can say about it. You’re letting your *desires* for getting Obama out of office try and “create a reality” where no such reality exists in real life.
***Maybe you’re engaging in a bit of projection here. It’s the first time I’ve considered it, but now it makes sense seeing how you buy into that alien abduction stuff. Having a tenuous hold on reality... “create a reality”... yup, that’s the kind of stuff you’d have experience with.

Now, you mentioned something about damage to the Constitution. That’s another wild idea that can’t happen without going through “procedures” that will *have to be followed*.
***Fine, then address my analogy of the 3rd amendment. What friggin procedures are there? There are very few because this hasn’t been much of an issue in our entire history. The fact that there aren’t good procedures in place to support a constitutional requirement is often a sign that this area hasn’t needed it in the past. But trolls seem to have a problem comprehending this.

You can’t change the Constitution without 3/4 of the states ratifying it.
***POTO.

And it usually takes years (sometimes 7 or more years) to go through the process.
***POTO.

And all Amendments to the Constitution just don’t breeze through such a public vote in the various states.
***POTO.

So, it’s even crazy to say that Obama is going to do something with the Constitution when you have to get 3/4 of the states to ratify any Amendments.
***POTO, and a straw argument because I’m not looking to change the constitution, I’m looking to enforce it.

This is another “unreal’ wild idea that some people are promoting. Nothing is going to change with the Constitution — without the states ratifying it.
***Again with the POTO thing, and again with the straw argument thing. Do you EVER have a valid argument? Can you put together two posts that do not contain classic fallacies in your arguments?

And I don’t see the states ratifying any changes that mess with the Constitution.
***POTO plus straw argument, same as above.

And then you were saying something about the Supreme Court’s job is to make sure Obama is either not in office or taken out of office (whichever way you mean it).
***Yes, I say that... before he gets in.

Well, the Supreme Court is not going to act upon *anything* like that in regards to Obama, unless there is a specific case before it.
***Specific case: Berg v Obama, to be conferenced tomorrow. 5 other cases before the court during this history episode, 2 thrown out so far. 10+ more specific cases making their way through the court system.

And all the cases before it — none of them have a thing to do with a “remedy” of removing a candidate.
***Sure they do. All of them do. If the candidate aint eligible the constitution says he CAN’T be president.

At most, someone may get standing, and it goes back to a lower court. In the instances where the Supreme Court was actually asked to intervene and block the Electoral College Votes and certification or prevent Obama from being inaugurated, by means of some injunction — the court did *no such thing*
***Not yet.

— and they’re not going to do any such thing.
***Invalid, classical fallacy, like the dog returning to his vomit: the argument from silence, the silence of the future.

Y’all are imagining that the Supreme Court is like some John Wayne cowboy, riding in there, both guns blazing and “taking out Obama”...
***Nope. You’re not very good at mindreading either, troll.

That’s the idea that you’re presenting with these wild schemes about how the Supreme Court is going to act.
***You don’t even read my posts. I don’t talk about how they’re “going to act” because that would be an argument from silence; that’s YOUR specialty, not mine.

It just gets more crazy all the time, when your *desires* are so intense that you can’t separate them from *reality* and how *things work* in the real world.
***Well, you’d be an expert on that there projection, being an alien abductee and all that.

There’s a huge *disconnect* from reality here.
***2 words: Alien Abductee. One more word: Projection.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2165531/posts?page=9#9

That’s why I’ve said all along to use the method that is most likely to succeed and it’s already working in Oklahoma, even before Obama is even in office.
***Your method has no chance whatsoever of knocking him off the horse before he is in office.

So, that makes a lot of sense to me and is connected to the “real world” in this situation...
***Uh huh. You’ve got that “real world” thing down, it’s plain for all to see. /s