Replies

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).

As I was saying in this last post you referenced, no one has shown anything
***The dog returns to its vomit. Whoda thunk?

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.
***You keep sayin’ it, that doesn’t make it true. But it does make you a troll.

So, you mention that there are several cases, which shows that there are others hammering away on the same idea
***And is part of the proof that this is a legitimate constitutional issue, not a tinfoil hat issue that most trolls accuse it of being. And it’s SO much more of a legitimate issue than your alien abduction garbage, which should cause the average lurker to question most of what else you say, even if there were no logical fallacies (but of course, there are dozens of them).

— the idea that’s not working and the idea that the Supreme Court is not doing a thing about.
***Ya keep sayin’ it, that don’t make it true. Troll.

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...
***Sure it did. The Chief Justice forwarded Dr. Taitz’s case for conference, which is different than doing nothing.

You keep thinking that there is some evidence there — but no courts have taken it up.
***The 2nd part of your statement does not cancel out the first. There was evidence that Bill Clintoon told Gennifer Flowers to lie (on tape) but no courts took it up.

It’s only evidence that you’re straining at.
***And you’re straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

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,
***Whatever, an embedded paranthetical within a which statement isn’t the smartest way to get your idea across. Best of luck on that project.

to prevent it from happening again)
***Good for you, sparky. You prevent it from happening again while we work on preventing it from happening at all. Go ahead, get going...

— that vetting process has been done with Obama, the same way it’s been done with all the other candidates in the past.
***Classical fallacy — the same way we’ve always done it.

Obama has been shown to be qualified under the Constitution by means of that same vetting process that has been used all along.
***Dog returns to his vomit. Doesn’t read 20th amendment as he’s been shown directly counters this statement. Vomit eating dog is a troll.

Now..., if you think this vetting process has been defective
***Yes I do.

(which I think Obama showed it to be defective)
***Torturous paranthetical again

— then — you can’t “backdate” the vetting process and get a “do-over” once it’s already gone through this defective process.
***Logical fallacy. It’s not done. It’s in-process. But you’d have known that if you’d read the 20th amendment rather than returning to the vomit of your argument ... again & again...

The Supreme Court is not going to do a “do over” for the vetting process, once it’s all been done.
***Interesting side point. Of course, all of your logic leading up to this has been shot down, so all you’re left with is the statement, which looks kinda funny standing on its own, unsupported. Too bad the statement “once it’s all been done” is false, nullifying even that one sentence. Can’t you put together a paragraph or two without using logical fallacies or returning to your vomit, troll?

And, that’s why the process has to be corrected.
***Sure, I agree with that.

But, you seem to want to get it “undone”
***Wrong, as shown above.

— that which has been done the same way, all along, in the past.
***Another classic fallacy used by you... when will it ever stop?

And — in addition — you want to get it undone,
***Wrong, just a restatement of something that’s wrong, like a troll dog returning to its vomit.

on the basis of no evidence
***Back to your vomit of NO evidence thing again. It was wrong before and it’s wrong now.

that any court has accepted as proof
***Moving the goal posts.

of any deficiency in the Constitutional qualifications.
***Still in process.

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
***I didn’t say that. That makes whatever follows a straw argument. I said you don’t know the future, so you can’t argue from it. You argue from it all the time. It’s a classic fallacy, and from what I can see it’s the ENTIRE BASIS of your approach. Doesn’t it bother you that the basis of your approach to this whole subject is a logical fallacy?

of what’s going to happen in the future — and yet — you’ll make pronouncements about what Obama is going to do
***Show us one or two.

in the future.
***Wrong.

It would seem that if you know what Obama is going to do in the future (according to many things I’ve heard posted)
***Well, here’s the end of your hypothetical because I don’t know what he’s going to do, I don’t know the future, so that’s that. When you argue against what other posters have said, you’re just trying to lump me in with them. Go and argue that point with them, since they made the point. Such an argument is fruitless because BOTH SIDES are proceeding from an argument of silence.

— then I can very easily say what’s going to happen with the Supreme Court, in the future,
***Well, since the setup of your hypothetical is toast, the conclusion is toast as well, but it’s interesting to glimpse how you formulate a logical argument. It’s plain for lurkers to see that you’re trying your darndest to set up a way to argue from the future for yourself.

based on their actions and also see what other courts are going to do based on their actions, too.
***Since you can’t know what someone is going to do, this is a crock statement. One of many from you, troll.

So, it would seem that for some,
***Nope. It would not seem.

it’s easy to say what Obama is going to do in the future
***Best of luck with that invalid argument from silence.

— but — one can’t say what the Supreme Court is going to do in the future.
***There’s a doosey. Why not throw in one of your alien abduction predictions right here to make it all seem so ... inevitable?

Well, I’ll say so — between now and the inauguration — nothing.
***Maybe if you sell that crystal ball you might be able to purchase a clue.

At the time of the inauguration, Obama will be sworn in.
***Ho hum, more crystal ball stuff.

After the inauguration, the Supreme Court will do nothing to remove Obama from office.
***An elaborate argument from silence, the silence of the future. The dog troll returns to its vomit.

So, if others have their say on what Obama is going to do in the future,
***Then take it up with those others.

I’ll have my say on what the Supreme Court is going to do in the future
***It’s obvious to all that you desperately want to stay on this line of invalid argumentation.

(and by plain common sense and observing what they’re already doing....) :-)
***Plain common sense... like that alien abduction stuff. OK. Got it.

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,
***I’ve posted that if it was a chess game, they played a poor move that yielded the center. So don’t bother arguing against it since I did not proffer such an argument.

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... :-)
***then argue those who think it

It never seems to cross the minds of some of these posters
***Does it cross your mind to actually address your arguments to the posters who actually post them? What was it you were saying about common sense again?

that the Supreme Court isn’t doing anything with these cases — because no one “has a case” to do anything with...
***Does it ever cross your mind that no one wants to touch this because they don’t want to cross Capone... er, I mean Obama, and risk riots in the streets?

That’s way too easy to figure
***Like that there rioting in the streets thing.

— so some have to look for something else to bolster their own lack of evidence.
***Yeah, right, Einstein. These guys sit around and say, “gee, we have a lack of evidence so let’s look for something to bolster it.”

And the fact that George Bush hasn’t ordered a prosecution
***The dog returns to this vomit now.

for violation of the Constitutional requirements, simply means (as I read it), that President George Bush simply hasn’t moved on the case yet.
***If someone says that, argue with them on it. It’s the SCOTUS job to decide this, not Bush’s.

Well, he better hurry because he’s only got a few more days. Or, maybe it’s like I heard from some posters
***Then argue with those posters, troll.

that Clinton was going to stay in office longer — so as a variation on that, President George Bush may stay in office longer,
***Where do you come up with this stuff? Maybe you’re the one sitting around trying to bolster your own lack of evidence.

after Obama is prosecuted and see the country through another election to make up for the last election fraud.
***Another election would not be constitutional. Now here’s a reward for any lurkers who have actually read this far and will read the next sentence. JimRob himself posted that he would like to see this done, and I pointed out to him it was not constitutional.

That *is* the type of thinking I’ve seen posted here.
***then take it up with them that post it.

It’s quite amazing how people really want to “stretch” things totally out of touch with reality
***You mean, like your alien abduction nonsense?

— when they really desire something so desperately.
***Like an alien abduction.

I would suggest an alternative, which is to get your state to pass a state law properly vetting a Presidential Candidate like Oklahoma is.
***It’s a great idea, and I support it. So go and do it, you’ve got 4 years to get it right. We’re working on a more exigent circumstance and having trolls like you in our way is a real nuisance.

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).
***Steam of consciousness blah blah blah I hope there isn’t an argument in here because I got MEGO.

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.
***dog returns to its vomit, causes MEGO — My eyes glaze over.

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.
***But will do nothing about the injury to the constitution taking place right now. So get out of our way, troll.

I’ve seen several posters in the past say
***Then take it up with them.

— 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)
***Embedded parenthetical, torturous writing. Take a writing class alongside that critical thinking class.

. And so, I’m wondering what some posters are going to be saying after January 20th.
***The troll dog returns to its vomit of an elaborate argument from silence, the silence of the future.

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.
***Argument from silence. You can’t know the future. Arguing against what you think someone will say is interesting, but useless.

The horse that is still running is the horse that concerns the state laws for vetting a Presidential Candidate.
***Classic fallacy. There are other horses still running. The inauguration hasn’t even happened yet.

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.
***Yah right. Let’s devote all this energy to something that might happen in 4 years in the hopes that the democratic congress doesn’t just move the goal posts. In the meantime we can do something about not even letting Obama assume the presidency. Go ahead and do that, go on, and we’ll do our thing. We’re not stealing any of your precious bodily fluids nor “energy” and your chances of alien abduction are not heightened, so... go on, you’re safe.

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 —
***That would be their purview. Your argument will make a heckuva lot more sense starting at the end of January rather than right when we’re focusing on this issue at its prime. That causes suspicion, which along with all of your other troll activities, is thoroughly warranted. Not only that, you’re a coward — “oh, let’s all just give up now on this court stuff and focus on my pet project over here for 4 years from now”... What a gigantic, steaming pile.

and doing precisely what Obama would want, anyway — getting sidetracked
***Well, at least the troll came up with a new argument rather than returning to some vomit. It’s interesting how these trolls worry about minor stuff like, “How this will make FR look bad” or “sidetracking” but just overlook the huge constitutional issue of eligibility. It’s a form of straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel.

and not doing anything to stop him the next time or doing anything in regards to his legislative agenda with the Democrat Congress.
***How did that work on the last election, hmmm? Not very well, eh? But we are still working on this eligibility stuff which has the (albeit slight) potential of knocking him out completely, while you guys play footsie with democrats.

Perhaps a lot of these same posters
***Perhaps you should take it up with those posters.

will finally get the idea that they’re gonna have to be dealing with Obama as President
***You are a coward. “Let’s give up now”

and that means dealing with what he could do and — thus — start working on that level.
***French collaborator coward, to be exact.

I can always hope that this is the case, but it doesn’t seem that several posters
***Take it up with those several posters.

are going to get connected with that reality of what Obama is going to do in office
***They’re more connected with reality than you are, alien abduction boy.

(and he’s just a few days away from being in office, and still “nothing” has happened the way that these posters have wanted).
***moving the goal posts.