Replies

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.