Now, if someone was able to produce some evidence in a court of law
***In process, 17 cases worth, 5 before SCOTUS.
and have that case with that evidence, having been verified by a court already,
***And if we could just get trolls to listen to arguments...
be taken up to the Supreme Court,
***Yeah, maybe you’ll go somewhere with this, maybe you won’t. But you’ve proven so disingenuous so far that I’ll bet you prove yourself to be completely full of bovine scatology. Note that your requirement for having had the SCOTUS do something by now is completely absurd, typical of how trolls move the goal posts.
maybe at that point in time, the Court would *have something* they could act upon.
***and maybe they do. You don’t know any more than I do what is gonna happen, so you can’t argue from silence, the silence of the future.
Right now the Court has nothing in the way of verified court evidence that they can act on.
***Sorta POTO. Sorta moving the goal posts. Sorta hyperbolic straw argument. Sorta combination of all of them mixed with suppositions of the law that are unverifiable.
And since Obama has been vetted and determined to be qualified per the Constitution
***More troll bull shiite, and at this point no one thinks you’ll look up the 20th amendment.
(again, the same way everyone else has always been) —
***Logical fallacy — same way we’ve always done it...
they’re just not going to do anything more.
***Logical fallacy, argument from silence.
**
For those who say that Obama has not been vetted as qualified under the Constitution, then I would say, why doesn’t the Supreme Court see it your way — thus far?
***For various reasons. They need to make sure they have done all they can to get the legal stuff right, they need to give zer0bama all the chances they can to produce the document honorably and proactively, they need to make sure there’s standing, they need to make sure they can trigger the 20th amendment which only takes place when he’s PE, plus other reasons... all of which I would expect that you’ll blithely go past and return to your vomit.
That’s a strong indication that they don’t see it that way at all.
***No it isn’t. I answered the question, and your “strong indication” is nothing more than another argument from silence... ho hum.
In addition, neither does President George Bush see it that way, as he had Secretary of State Rice report to him the situation with Obama’s passport and Bush knows the details there.
***Plenty of reasons why, all discussed with you and you ignore them... like the troll troll troll you are.
If there was any fraud going on there, it’s an easy matter for him to direct prosecution by the Justice Department and put a quick end to that one.
***Bull shiite.
He had that information as far back as last March.
***Presumption. Provably false one at that. The guvner of Hawaii said that no one had been given the BC information, which means he didn’t have it in March.
Since President George Bush has done nothing in the way of prosecuting Obama,
***I wouldn’t expect him to, but we can let FReeper lawyers weigh in on that ... best of luck getting them to follow your meandering posts.
we’ve also got the Executive Branch of the government agreeing that Obama is properly vetted,
***Bull shiite. They just haven’t moved, that doesn’t mean they agree. Gee, you seem to go out of your way to find invalid arguments.
in addition to the Judicial Branch also saying so (by their actions).
***Again more bull stuff.
You mentioned the 3rd Amendment — and one can say that this is one that gets no attention at all, if it ever did. I think it may have gotten attention in exactly two instances, in its history (I think one case got thrown out).
***Exactly the point. The reason why there isn’t much case law is because the constitutional requirement has been there all along and no one has pushed the boundaries of this law. Same could be said about eligibility of the pres, and the case law & procedures surrounding it.
On the other hand, the candidates for President of the United States have been vetted to be qualified (or not) under the Constitution every Presidential election and it hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least not recently.
***This does not follow, a non sequitur. There is no “other hand”. Your argument is meaningless because, first of all, eligibility has not been a problem just like you say, so there wouldn’t be the case law as I say,thereby nullifying your point. And there isn’t going to be a single freeper that cares enough to comment at this far into the conversation, with all your troll twists in logic. This particular paragraph was a reasonably good example of obfuscation.
Obama has done the same thing as prior candidates and he’s gone through that very same vetting process which determined him to be qualified.
***Not even close to true. The other candidate in the race produced his birth certificate. None of the other presidents have been sued for eligibility as far as I can tell.
It’s only a very small segment of people who think that Obama has to do more than other candidates have had to in the past to “prove” that he qualifies,
***Even if it’s only one person, if that person is right it doesn’t matter how many there are. And this is a straw argument, because we’re not asking him to do more, we’re asking him to do as much as McCain. And yes, he does have to prove he qualifies, the 20th amendment doesn’t say the People have to qualify him, it says if the pres elect fails to qualify. Burden of proof is on him to qualify.
when it has not been required of anyone to do any more than he has done presently.
***Already dealt with this bull scatology line of argument above.
It would be a different story *if* anyone, someone, anywhere, anytime — had an ounce of proof
***There you go again.
that went through a court of law
***In process.
that could be verified
***Moving the goal posts.
and then carried up in a case to the Supreme Court.
***Moving the goal posts again.
But, sorry — nothing there...
***Hyperbolic straw argument. There’s plenty there.
And that’s what you’ve got — *absolutely nothing*
***Back to your vomit of the NOTHING focus.
— that any court can act upon,
***IN process.
to prevent Obama from taking office.
***In process. 17 cases, 5 before the court. One tomorrow.
And soon, after January 20th, it’s only going to be Congress who can remove the President — unless someone comes up with that idea that I saw posted elsewhere — where a sheriff (or some law enforcement) walks into the White House and escorts Obama out of the White House, because he’s not qualified to be President... (now..., that’s a funny one... LOL...).
***It’s nice to be able to get through more than one sentence of yours without finding a classic fallacy. Take that writing class. Maybe you’ll be able to put a couple more of these together.
It’s amazing what kinds of ideas pop into people’s heads when they really really want something to happen their way....
***Back to your denigrating bullstuff, hinting at how we don’t line up with “reality” as you’ve said in the past... all this coming from a guy who believes in alien abduction....yeah that’s a strong grip on reality ya got there, sparky.
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.
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).