Congress sued to remove prez from White House

worldNetDaily.com ^ | January 31, 2009 | WorldNetDaily

[mlo]

"IF you did I missed it. Quite possible as I've been busy chasing down coordinate transformations object rotations. While that is not a link, I found it myself before you replied."

That happens. I'm sure I've missed some too.

I provided the URL. It wasn't a hot link.

[mlo]

"Yea, it would, at least the "place of birth question". That is if it was a paper copy, with a raised seal that could be examined. With paper that could be examined and so forth. But it's not, it's image which shows evidence of having been manipulated."

Yes, in court. And the internet isn't a court.

What evidence is there of manipulation?

[mlo]

"It was alleged that he was not born in the US. This image was posted in response to that allegation."

There was a published suggestion that he provide the document.

"The image posted did have a seal, at least to the naked eye, and yet when it was allegedly photographed in response to that observation, why there is the seal."

There's a big difference in the lighting between a scan and a photograph. The seal is visisble on the scan, but you have to look for the impressions. It is not side lit like the photos.

"A perfect circle, when from the angle of the paper, it should appear as an ellipse."

Have you checked this yourself or are you taking someone's word for it?

[mlo]

"When these liars and fools start flapping their gums..."

Watch the name calling. As you told someone else, "what part of no personal attacks do you not understand?"

People have an absolute right to disagree with you. You are not infallible. You've posted your claims on this forum, among other places. If you expect that your claims should be above criticism then you have very unreasonable expectations.

Something is not a fact because you declare it to be. It must be proven. Your analysis fails in that regard in most respects. If I, or anyone else, chooses to explain that, it is our right to do so. Doing so does not imply you are a liar, it implies you are wrong. Keep it civil, or ignore it. Your choice.

A rational person understands that disagreeing about such matters is not an attack on the person. Yet every time anyone has disagreed with you, you've engaged in angry rants. Such behavior does not raise confidence in your ability to stick to objective facts in your work. You should stick to the issues.

[mlo]

"Doesn’t matter what facts or evidence is presented before them. They ignore it, and very shortly are repeating the exact same phrases as though no one else had ever said a thing. It’s the Big Lie tactic."

You are describing the behavior of many of the people here promoting the birther mythology, not the critics.

"And if there were sincere people who disagreed with your statements or the statements of others, they would debate in a rational manner."

Look who you are saying that to! Good advice for Polarik.

[mlo]

"He isn't born in a particular place until he proves otherwise"

"That is the way it works for the rest of us, regarding place and date of birth. Usually requires a picture ID and sometimes even a thumbprint."

I was responding to a statement that he was born in Kenya until proven otherwise. I don't think that works for any of us.

[mlo]

"Mlo, You are NOT a lawyer. The lawyer in my house says that no judge will accept the document his lawyer presented as evidence. Any judge will only accept a document that has not been both certified, but presented to the court by an officer of the court....."

I wasn't suggesting the image would be accepted by the court, but that the paper document would.

[mlo]

"Actually, the state department requires a long form BC to get a passport. It’s on the web site."

Cite it.

There is a statement requiring them from certain states, of which Hawaii is not one.

[hoosiermama]

Actually only the certified vault copy presented by an officer of the court would be accepted. So you are not correct.

[mlo]

"Actually only the certified vault copy presented by an officer of the court would be accepted. So you are not correct."

Nope. The paper certified copy which was scanned and photographed would be accepted. It does not have to be the "vault copy".

[Drew68]

I would suspect it is NOT, since it does not contain the required signatures as stated above. Proving my point.

Actually, Hawaii's short form BC clearly has the required seals, dates and signatures.

LOL! Do you people just make this stuff up as you go along?

[ponygirl]

Hoosiermama, I just checked this mlo guy's back posting log back to January 20th and he or she has spent the entire day every single day posting about nothing but this subject - debunking the "truthers" or "birthers" as he calls them. Either he's on someone's payroll to do this, he doesn't mind bilking his employee for days spent on FR "debating" this issue (by sticking his fingers in his ears and going "la la lalalala!"), or he owns his own business. Whoever is running that business while he spends weeks debating The One's eligibility issues is anyone's guess.

Then I found this comment: "Someone can easily accuse you and your side of using “Alinsky methods”. Argue the issues, not the posters." Ah, the truth is always revealed eventually.

Would love to know who he works for. Or is it already obvious?

I recommend ignoring him. He has stamina, and he has someone paying him to do this all day long - something that the rest of us don't have. It's a typical liberal ploy. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t until the fight is worn out of them.

[ponygirl]

No actually, I don't make it up as I go along. I looked at the "scan" that Obama submitted as proof and saw no fold lines and no embossed seal. Then I looked at the photo of the certificate that mlo has posted 457 times on this forum and saw the crisp new fold lines and new embossed seal.

Sorry, I'm not buying that bridge you're selling. LOL!

[mlo]

I am not the issue. Stick to the issues.

And “your side” is clear from context. The people that keep posting this stuff and arguing with me. Reaching a little there aren’t you?

[Red Steel]

Actually, Hawaii's short form BC clearly has the required seals, dates and signatures.

"Clearly"? LoL! Not the scanned image that was published online last June by the DailyKooks. You cannot see any discernible seal or signature. Not with naked eye.

[ponygirl]

Oooooh, you told on me!

What are you, six?

[real_patriotic_american]

Your lengthy discussion supporting keeping Obama in office will not discourage me from pushing to have him removed. I believe that one of these lawsuits will send Obama out of office.

[hoosiermama]

You have told all of us before you are not a lawyer....You loose. Good bye

[Polarik]

Thanks, Scanlan.

They're getting more bizarre every day.

[mlo]

"BTW, the obots love making snide little comments about you but I have yet to see any of them disprove your work."

I'm not an obot, but I posted a disproof of his missing green pixels theory just the other day. Did you miss it?