Supremes get case against 'putative' President Obama

WND ^ | October 01, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[Beckwith]

The fact that the Senate passed a resolution about McCain's eligibility does NOT mean they held hearings about McCain's eligibility. And, in fact, the Senate NEVER held hearings about McCain's eligibility.

Of course they did.

From the official website of the United States Senate. This is Senator Patrick Leahy's webpage.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

[LorenC]

You really need to get your eyesight checked, old man. Because in the same paragraph you quoted, I wrote (and you cut out) "All that ever happened hearing-wise was a single question-and-answer during a hearing about the Homeland Security Department."

And then you pretend like it's a rebuttal to point out that there was a single question-and-answer during a Homeland Security hearing.

Either your reading is impaired or you're intentionally obtuse. Given that you also see imaginary credentials for people, and you've recently demonstrated your ability to see double, I certainly wouldn't rule out eye problems.

But then, maybe "A Senator asked one question about X during an unrelated hearing" makes it accurate in your world to say "The Senate held hearings about X."

Like, say, claiming that "The U.S. House held hearings on whether Guam will tip over." Would you say that's an accurate statement too? Maybe you'd also insist it's accurate to say "The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Star Trek Vulcans are human."

Heck, let's just limit it to stuff Patrick Leahy *himself* has said. So I guess "The Senate has debated the latest Batman movie." would also be accurate in your little fantasy world.

See, your problem is that at some point early on, someone told you that the Senate held hearings about McCain's eligibility. And you believed it and put it on your site, because you don't factcheck information before you publish it. You're lazy and gullible that way. You probably believed that the Senate had whole debates over McCain, and that testimony and evidence was presented. And then when someone actually pointed out that there weren't hearings devoted to McCain's eligibility, that there wasn't even a single hearing devoted to McCain's elibility, that there was in fact just ONE QUESTION about McCain's eligibility, you had a choice. You could either concede your mistake and change your argument to fit the actual facts, or you could be a stubborn old coot and insist that the words aren't inaccurate *enough* to bother changing them.

Please. Just...please.

[Beckwith]

It doesn't matter how many questions were asked.

Sen’ Leahy describes the event as a hearing, and you claim there was no hearing.

Who you gonna believe, the Chairman of the senate Judicial Committee or our resident Gullible.

You can dissimulate all you want. There was a hearing, and Leahy called it a hearing.

You are wrong, but like the ambulance chaser you are, you twist the facts.