Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation?? If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation ... which would not break any privacy laws. She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation??
By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.
If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation
She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.
which would not break any privacy laws.
Rubbish. See above.
She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.
More rubbish. I've asked you before for statutory authority for your assertions along this line. You do not provide anything, you merely continue to reassert that which is manifestly untrue.
Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people,
Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.
evidently like yourself.
I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.
Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.
When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader. When the doctor said she had nothing "further" to add it indicates that she has already added something, thus connecting the two statements. When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.
Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.
Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii. Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.
More assumption not based in fact.
Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.
Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??
In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language. You may assume, as Ann Coulter said to Matt Lauer on the Today Show, "you can always assume that I believe what I write." Such patronizing does not advance your arguments with the reader although I have no doubt that provides you with some fleeting gratification.
Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??
There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility. They did so in the case of Barack Obama but they did so in a faulty manner.
I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.
By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.There's no privacy law that prohibits the release of the information. It prohibits the release of certified copies of vital records to people who don't have a tangible and direct interest. The information on the vital records is at the discretion of the direct of the health department ... stated clearly in HRS 338-18(d), "Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public."
She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.
There is no public document.
Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.
Any reader with a basic understanding of the word 'sinister' will have not trouble judging that misleading statements don't have to have sinister motivations. Good luck pushing the high drama angle.
I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.
You have put faith in Fukino's statements which I have proved are misleading and inaccurate. Your response to her statements is an excellent example of my point, so in this case, the shoe fits, and is an appropriate response to your comment. Second, you need to show where there's an circular logic. Tossing an allegation like that is cheap when you do nothing to support it.
When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader.
Sorry, but this is still a desperate stretch on semantics.I can do that too by noting that you ignored the word 'or' which means she kept the statement SEPARATE. If they were connected, then she would have said 'I have nothing further to add to this statement and my original statement ..."
When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.
Your accusation that I misquoted Fukino is simply wrong. And of course, you fail to acknowledge that such an accusation itself was what you call a 'quasi-ad hominem.'
Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii.
This is factually wrong in at least two ways. Nothing has been confirmed by the alleged COLB because the COLB itself has never been confirmed. Fukino has never said an underlying birth certificate confirms birth in Hawaii. Funny that you bemoan about misquoting, yet have no qualms in doing the same.
Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.
Only to someone who is overly sensitive.
Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.
Wrong. You claimed he "proved his eligibility." Ratifying electoral votes doesn't indicate that anyone proved, examined, approved or acknowledged anything having to do with eligibility. Unless you can show that members of Congress looked at Obama's eligibility, then you stated an assumption.
In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language.
There's no word game here (look who's using another ad hominem, by the way). I asked you a question based on YOUR word choice, which in the context, appeared to be purposely chosen so as to trivialize the allegation of fraud. So, the question remains, since you dodged it.
There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility.
Yes, actually there was. First you suggested a proposition that shows no acknowledgment of Congress as having any Constitutional duty to determine eligbility.
"First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president."
Then you followed with a statement expressing incredulity that such a responsibility would be place on Congress.
"I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States."
Nothing here about Congress already doing this function or how such a function can be viewed by the public.
I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.
You certainly failed to advance your assumptions, so it should be obvious now that your posts have indeed been nonsense.