Apparently someone took the liberty to hire a private investigator to find the truth, and apparently Obamas parents listed as having been born in Kenya.

Here is the story:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231

The evidence is supposed to arrive on Friday being mailed to the mainland. Personally I am not holding my breath. I believe that he is not a US citizen based on his dodgy behavior and the amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records but that could also be a publicity and hearts & minds stunt as well. After all if you let the people rant and rave and then prove them wrong with the truth you can get more support out of it.

Anyways keep an eye for Friday just in case.

I won't hold my breath that anything will come of this.

What exactly is the issue regarding the Hawaiian birth certificate?

What exactly is the issue regarding the Hawaiian birth certificate?

Hawaii isn't arkansas or texas... so therefore Obama can't be an American.

/american ignorance

What exactly is the issue regarding the Hawaiian birth certificate?

The issue is that there are several cases requesting for Obama to show his birth certificate and prove he was born in the us. He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate. At one point he produced a certificate of live birth which is not the same and not a proof of birth in Hawaii.

It's very simple, if you are not born in the US you cannot be president the US. This is a reasonable law which allows Americans to control our country with our people.

He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate..


Which is why he has let various different people see the certificate in person, and even post pictures of it?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Independent observers (e.g. Factcheck.org) have seen it. The relevant state organizations (e.g. Hawaii’s Department of Health) have seen it.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has dismissed these accusations based on a complete lack of evidence.... people have found even more evidence than he is, by finding a announcement in the local newspapers that Obama was born... and the article you linked to already has an update that diminishes its credibility even further ("Update: In his 7:45pm Plains Radio broadcast, this last night, Ed Hale backed down from his prior assertion of having gained even uncertain information about the Barack Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce decree containing language referring to Barack Jr. as being born in Kenya. Instead, Hale referred to an apparently tricky recollection... of an indeterminate person... referring to such a document's generally referring to the place of birth of the children of the divorced parents. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hale on the 31st.").

In short, you're a fucking moron.

Which is why he has let various different people see the certificate in person, and even post pictures of it?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Independent observers (e.g. Factcheck.org) have seen it. The relevant state organizations (e.g. Hawaii’s Department of Health) have seen it.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has dismissed these accusations based on a complete lack of evidence.... people have found even more evidence than he is, by finding a announcement in the local newspapers that Obama was born... and the article you linked to already has an update that diminishes its credibility even further ("Update: In his 7:45pm Plains Radio broadcast, this last night, Ed Hale backed down from his prior assertion of having gained even uncertain information about the Barack Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce decree containing language referring to Barack Jr. as being born in Kenya. Instead, Hale referred to an apparently tricky recollection... of an indeterminate person... referring to such a document's generally referring to the place of birth of the children of the divorced parents. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hale on the 31st.").

In short, you're a fucking moron.


The Supreme court has not dismissed "These Accusations".

I already mentioned I am of DUAL opinions for and against the arguments which makes me neutral on this topic.
My first overwhelming feeling was that Berg was a Jew in Obamas party running a Campaign against Obama and getting no Flak for it. Most Jews love Obama so this didn't sit right with me. I figured Shenanigans were afoot right from the start but I like to see how things play out. Sometimes you are completely wrong and not all the facts are present in this particular case so there is a lot of room for misinterpretation on either side.

The arguments I have seen haven't been against the fact that Obama produced a Certification of Live Birth. It's been against the fact that a Certification of Live Birth isn't a Certificate of Live Birth. Having both I know the difference personally. My Birth Certificate actually has some pretty crazy shit on it. Even my feet prints, doctors name, attending nurses, weight, time, etc. etc.

The other arguments are that his document has been falsified. Some so called "experts" have said this.

I have heard arguments on both sides that suggest he either has a newspaper proclamation of birth and, in reverse, doesn't have one.
I have seen neither prove their claim.

I am curious about Friday but I also know that it could be yet another ploy to draw attention to the authors of the claim.

I won't hold my breath that anything will come of this.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

That.

Obama's birth certificate has been out for a mighty long motherfucking time. For some reason, the "Liberal" Media has been ignoring it completely, and has been running stories questioning whether or not he's a U.S. citizen in it's stead.

Sorry but you cannot claim you are remaining neutral while at the same time making ridiculous accusations such as "He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate. At one point he produced a certificate of live birth which is not the same and not a proof of birth in Hawaii, which are just plainly misleading.

The fact, as shown by the source I gave you, is:

"The document [Obama has provided] is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. "

You also don't remain neutral by ignoring evidence. You conveniently fail to mention:

a. That the Hawaii Health Department - the people that matter here, as opposed to morons on the internet - have already stated that there is no doubt he was born in Hawaii.

b. That the link I gave you contains evidence of the very "newspaper proclamation" you say you haven't seen proof of. It contains a scan of the newspaper listing showing the announcement.

Dude, god himself could descend from heaven and proclaim that Obama was in fact born in the U.S., and these people would just call him an Impostor.

With some people, there's no reasoning.

Sorry but you cannot claim you are remaining neutral while at the same time making ridiculous accusations such as "He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate. At one point he produced a certificate of live birth which is not the same and not a proof of birth in Hawaii, which are just plainly misleading.

Yes, that makes perfect sense if you completely ignore that I said " but that could also be a publicity and hearts & minds stunt as well. After all if you let the people rant and rave and then prove them wrong with the truth you can get more support out of it." in my opening statement.
He's spent what? Over a million dollars now in legal fees to keep people from accessing birth records?

The fact, as shown by the source I gave you, is:

"The document [Obama has provided] is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. "

Yes I know, I already stated this myself.

You also don't remain neutral by ignoring evidence. You conveniently fail to mention:

a. That the Hawaii Health Department - the people that matter here, as opposed to morons on the internet - have already stated that there is no doubt he was born in Hawaii.

K but that's not the entire issue there are also issues of expatriation and forgery.

b. That the link I gave you contains evidence of the very "newspaper proclamation" you say you haven't seen proof of. It contains a scan of the newspaper listing showing the announcement.

K thx, but I think I will wait until it's produced and examined in court.

Everyone keeps calling the people saying Obama wasnt born in America "crazy". Were not really. All he has to do is show his birth certificate. BAM just like that the whole debate is over and we can move on...

Instead when sued by Phil Berg he got a top notch legal team to stop Phil Berg. Berg even said he would drop the suit if Obama showed his birth certificate.

Why can't he just show it and get this whole thing over with, it really isn't that hard. I know the Hawaii Dept. of Health said they looked at it and it was legit. But why can't they just show it to the public and put an immediate end to the controversey.

When people questioned Mccain's citizenship he showed his birth certificate and all his records proving he was American, Obama has done no such thing.

Everyone keeps calling the people saying Obama wasnt born in America "crazy". Were not really. All he has to do is show his birth certificate. BAM just like that the whole debate is over and we can move on...

Instead when sued by Phil Berg he got a top notch legal team to stop Phil Berg. Berg even said he would drop the suit if Obama showed his birth certificate.

Why can't he just show it and get this whole thing over with, it really isn't that hard. I know the Hawaii Dept. of Health said they looked at it and it was legit. But why can't they just show it to the public and put an immediate end to the controversey.

When people questioned Mccain's citizenship he showed his birth certificate and all his records proving he was American, Obama has done no such thing.

When they asked Obama for his birth certificate before he ran for president, he was FUCKING CLEARED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

Will you just shut your God damn mouth and take the dick out of your ass? He wouldn't be allowed to go this far if he wasn't a legal citizen. Shut the fuck up. Quit Bitching just b/c you don't want a half-black for a president. Get on with your fucking life.

All he has to do is show his birth certificate. BAM just like that the whole debate is over and we can move on....

He did show his birth certificate.

Glad we can move on.

--------------

I don't believe any of you posting here were born in America, show me your birth certificates....

***everyone shows Broke their birth certificates***

Fakes, all of em fakes.

Now prove they are not fakes.

--------------

The problem here is actually the American education system.

The problem here is actually the American education system.

Wow... the second time I've agreed with you. How interesting.

But seriously... Fuck these idiot rednecks and the education system that is merely a secret hidden in plain view (the colleges are just a way for old white people to get rich off of poor college students. The semesters get shorter ever year, yet the requirements are raised higher and higher. It's ridiculous. I've only had THREE classes in the past 3 years (3 semesters a year) actually finish to the end of their curriculum. It's bullshit.

Yes, that makes perfect sense if you completely ignore that I said " but that could also be a publicity and hearts & minds stunt as well. After all if you let the people rant and rave and then prove them wrong with the truth you can get more support out of it." in my opening statement.
He's spent what? Over a million dollars now in legal fees to keep people from accessing birth records?

Apparently you misunderstood me. The problem isn't your convenient weasel phrases you use(i.e. "It's X.... but it could be not X"). It's your accusation, the one you repeated just there, that he is deliberately trying to keep people from accessing his birth records, that is the problem.




K but that's not the entire issue there are also issues of expatriation and forgery.

That only helps my case! You are not neutral since you conveniently fail to present the entire case!



K thx, but I think I will wait until it's produced and examined in court.

Which apparently isn't going to happen since courts at many different levels have turned down these cases.

I wonder why....

K thx, but I think I will wait until it's produced and examined in court.

Think about it, should we even be having that conversation? Why are we still here without a birth certificate? Obama shouldn't need to get sued to show his birth certificate, he should just show it.

Think about it, should we even be having that conversation? Why are we still here without a birth certificate? Obama shouldn't need to get sued to show his birth certificate, he should just show it.

No... You should fuck off and die in a fucking ditch.

If Obama was allowed to run in the first place then he shouldn't have to produce shit. You don't fuck up that big and then go "Oh... maybe he wasn't an American citizen" dickwad.

All of you people that don't like him need to fucking get bent. He's your president. Support him you fucking unpatriotic twats.

Apparently you misunderstood me. The problem isn't your convenient weasel phrases you use(i.e. "It's X.... but it could be not X"). It's your accusation, the one you repeated just there, that he is deliberately trying to keep people from accessing his birth records, that is the problem.

I didn't misunderstand you. It's not a weasel phrase. I said it because I meant it.
I suppose my question is accusatory, so what? It's impossible to be neutral and inquisitive at the same time? Even the neutral can choose to want answers.


That only helps my case! You are not neutral since you conveniently fail to present the entire case!

You are illogical which is unlike you. Just because I do not present the entire case does not establish my standing. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you should know this.




Which apparently isn't going to happen since courts at many different levels have turned down these cases.

I wonder why....

Turned the cases down did they? So then the courts didn't actually prove anything to the contrary of the claims did they?

I didn't misunderstand you. It's not a weasel phrase. I said it because I meant it.
I suppose my question is accusatory, so what? It's impossible to be neutral and inquisitive at the same time? Even the neutral can choose to want answers.

Oh please spare me the bullshit. You cannot make a baseless accusation like "He's spend millions of dollars preventing people from finding his birth records" and still expect people to thin you're neutral. You know this, so please stop grasping at straws.


You are illogical which is unlike you. Just because I do not present the entire case does not establish my standing. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you should know this.


1. You obviously have no clue what that logical fallacy is because it's nothing close to what I did. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") is the logical fallacy of thinking that because B happened after A, B caused A.

Where the fuck did I do that?



2. You are not presenting the whole picture, which does not indicate a neutral position but a biased one. There is no logical fallacy in pointing one out.


Turned the cases down did they? So then the courts didn't actually prove anything to the contrary of the claims did they?

It's not their burden to prove so, it's the people making the accusation (like you who claimed that Obama has spend millions preventing people from getting the birth certificate) who have the burden to prove so. The people accusing Obama of not having U.S. citizenship have failed miserably at living up to even the most simple burdens of proof (i.e establishing a reasonable case so that the Judge is willing to hear it out at trial) multiple times, at various different levels.

He's still a nigger.

Establishment nigger is from the establishment. :)

Seriously, all this OMG MUST FIND WAY TO DISCREDIT shit from the right wingers if almost as sad as the lefties who drank the 'change' kool aide.


"I believe the puppet on the right shares my opinion"


"well I believe that the puppet on the right better represents me"


"hey wait a minute, the same guy's holding both puppets!"

Oh please spare me the bullshit. You cannot make a baseless accusation like "He's spend millions of dollars preventing people from finding his birth records" and still expect people to thin you're neutral. You know this, so please stop grasping at straws.

Whatever, you're still wrong and I am still neutral.



1. You obviously have no clue what that logical fallacy is because it's nothing close to what I did. Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc ("After this, therefore because of this") is the logical fallacy of thinking that because B happened after A, B caused A.

Where the fuck did I do that?

My fault I meant to say Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.


2. You are not presenting the whole picture, which does not indicate a neutral position but a biased one. There is no logical fallacy in pointing one out.

I know that's what you think, which is why I explained the logical fallacy above.
I am telling you that I am neutral on the argument and yet you just aren't listening. There is no way you can even argue that I am not neutral and win because I am netural. I honestly do not give a fuck one way or another. It interests me and I see many scenarios in the whole drama and I am free to speak about any aspect I want. You are taking what is said in a small few paragraphs and trying to develop a ridiculous theory over it. Get over it, I am neutral.



It's not their burden to prove so, it's the people making the accusation (like you who claimed that Obama has spend millions preventing people from getting the birth certificate) who have the burden to prove so. The people accusing Obama of not having U.S. citizenship have failed miserably at living up to even the most simple burdens of proof (i.e establishing a reasonable case so that the Judge is willing to hear it out at trial) multiple times, at various different levels.

Okay.....but this isn't a reasonable response to my statement.
My comment was that the courts turned them down and proved nothing to the contrary.
You can go read why they were turned down for yourself.

Whatever, you're still wrong and I am still neutral.

Ha! The irony of you talking about "logic"...

How am I wrong? Did you or did you not make an accusation you haven't back up, against Obama? Is making baseless accusations against a specific side, indicative of being neutral?

My fault I meant to say Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Please do yourself a favor and read what these logical fallacies are before you keep trotting them out. That one doesn't apply either. It's the same as before except instead if B happening before A, it happens at the same time as A. I didn't do that either.


I know that's what you think, which is why I explained the logical fallacy above.
I am telling you that I am neutral on the argument and yet you just aren't listening. There is no way you can even argue that I am not neutral and win because I am netural. I honestly do not give a fuck one way or another. It interests me and I see many scenarios in the whole drama and I am free to speak about any aspect I want. You are taking what is said in a small few paragraphs and trying to develop a ridiculous theory over it. Get over it, I am neutral.

Yes, you are telling me you are neutral. Telling. Everything else shows you're not. You make baseless accusations against Obama, and not against the other side. That's not neutral. You make no effort to back them up. That's not neutral. You fail to paint the full picture, by not providing facts that help Obama's side. Again, not neutral.


Oh, and the logical fallacy you "explained" (you actually explained nothing, but merely mentioned it) is wrong, too. So not only are you not neutral, you're a fucking moron. Can you name this logical fallacy? I made it an easy one, just for you.



Okay.....but this isn't a reasonable response to my statement.
My comment was that the courts turned them down and proved nothing to the contrary. You can go read why they were turned down for yourself.

Of course it's a reasonable response. I'm explaining to you why they "proved nothing to the contrary": They don't have to! The ones making the claim have to, like you, and they apparently failed miserably at it.

Blah blah blah blah blah
You're really boring me. No matter how much you want it to be true I am simply Neutral on the whole issue.

Blah blah blah blah blah
Apparently you don't really understand the fallacy either or you would understand it's the basis of correlation & causation argument which is the point I was making all along.


Blah blah blah blah blah
Yes I am telling you I am neutral. That's all that really needs to be said.


Blah blah blah blah blah
You're right I didn't explain the logical fallacy. It should read as pointed out. I pointed out the logical fallacy.
Correlation and Causation. You see one trend and assume something is therefore the cause because of the trend. In this case you see me talking about one specific subject and assume it's because I have already accepted one side.
Get it yet?

Blah blah blah blah blah

Listen, dipshit, I am not making a comment about the courts proving it I am actually stating (are you listening) that their refusal to the hear case doesn't prove anything.
I am not saying it's the courts job to prove anything I know it's the lawyers job.

Damn you are dense. I hereby revoke your status as being an intelligent member of totse. Did you start doing drugs recently?

You're really boring me. No matter how much you want it to be true I am simply Neutral on the whole issue.

You claim you are neutral, but your actions show you are not. Again:

Did you or did you not make an accusation you haven't back up, against Obama? Is making baseless accusations against a specific side, indicative of being neutral?

Apparently you don't really understand the fallacy either or you would understand it's the basis of correlation & causation argument which is the point I was making all along.

I understand the fallacy just fine, which is why I understand I didn't say that "A happened with B, therefore A caused B" which is what the fallacy says.

And while, yes , the fallacies you mentioned do speak of causation and correletion, they do not apply here. Not only did I never mention anything in terms of time (i.e. "Happened at the same time" or "happened before" or "happened after") which is what those fallacies deal with, but my argument isn't about causation. It's about you not fitting a definition:

Making baseless accusations against a specific side, not wanting to substantiate the allegations against that specific side, not painting the full picture, etc. all of those things are not consistent with "neutrality".

In short, you don't know what the fallacies mean. You failed miserably at sounding smart. Pathetic.


Yes I am telling you I am neutral. That's all that really needs to be said.

No, actually, someone pointing out how your actions don't fit your claim is also vital here. I'm filling in that role, and filling it quite nicely I should say, judging by your childish response.



You see one trend and assume something is therefore the cause because of the trend. In this case you see me talking about one specific subject and assume it's because I have already accepted one side.
Get it yet?


That's not what I'm doing. I never once even mentioned the word cause.

I see a trend (i.e. you making baseless accusations against a specific side and ignoring things that beneffit a specific side) and point out how that's not consistent with neutrality. That's not a fallacy of claiming "correlation equals causation".


Listen, dipshit, I am not making a comment about the courts proving it I am actually stating (are you listening) that their refusal to the hear case doesn't prove anything.
I am not saying it's the courts job to prove anything I know it's the lawyers job.

Listen, dipshit, I'm not saying you are claiming its the courts job to prove anything. Did I even mention your name?

In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out the Why of your statement. Why didn't they prove anything? Because they didn't have to. That's it. At no point in time did I say you claimed otherwise. I'm providing the full picture because your bias has kept you from doing so through this entire thread. That's it. The full picture is: The courts have not proved otherwise because they don't have to. All attempts at making a formal case against Obama in the courts have failed miserably.

And please, stop pretending anyone here gives a flying fuck what you think of the intelligence of other totse members. They don't.

Yada yada yada

I'm neutral. I don't care what you say about it. It's a pointless argument you cannot win. Get over it.

I made accusations to the contrary as well. You overlook one fact to the support the other.


Yada Yada Yada

blah blah blah, more crap about Correlation and Causation, explanation of how it applies, yet again, etc. etc. etc.

Yada Yada Yada

So your argument isn't about me actually being neutral, it's about me wanting to discuss one aspect or another. Kthx, I already know that.

Yada Yada Yada

I actually do know what it means, you just don't know anything about the fallacy except it's obvious literal meaning. You should really look up more about it. Let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation




Yada Yada, use the word baseless to often, yada yada yada

Look man, I really don't care.





Bunch of rehashing of court based crap, blah blah blah.

Actually I am just deleting this question. I don't even care what your answer is.
I don't even care to continue this conversation. What is the point exactly other than you wanting to argue about my stance on the subject based on what I am currently discussing rather than simply ask me.
You're just annoying and being rather idiotic about the whole thing from my point of view.

To any idiot who thinks Obama wasn't born in Hawaii:

The state of Hawaii itself says the document is legit. Seeing how they are the issuer, they have the ultimate authority.

That is all.

To any idiot who thinks Obama wasn't born in Hawaii:

The state of Hawaii itself says the document is legit. Seeing how they are the issuer, they have the ultimate authority.

That is all.

The thing is that people want to see the evidence, not hear about it. It's not just that but there are other arguments against the whole issue as well. At any rate Berg vs. Obama comes up on the 9th.

I'm neutral. I don't care what you say about it. It's a pointless argument you cannot win. Get over it.

I made accusations to the contrary as well. You overlook one fact to the support the other.

You claim you are neutral, but your actions show you are not. Again:

Did you or did you not make an accusation you haven't back up, against Obama? Is making baseless accusations against a specific side, indicative of being neutral?


blah blah blah, more crap about Correlation and Causation, explanation of how it applies, yet again, etc. etc. etc.

I'm glad we both agree you're a moron who failed comically at trying to sound smart by invoking logical fallacies you clearly don't understand. :)


So your argument isn't about me actually being neutral, it's about me wanting to discuss one aspect or another. Kthx, I already know that.

No, it's about you not being neutral. I already explained to you that here:

"Yes, you are telling me you are neutral. Telling. Everything else shows you're not. You make baseless accusations against Obama, and not against the other side. That's not neutral. You make no effort to back them up. That's not neutral. You fail to paint the full picture, by not providing facts that help Obama's side. Again, not neutral."

I actually do know what it means, you just don't know anything about the fallacy except it's obvious literal meaning. You should really look up more about it. Let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


Obviously you don't know what it means hence why you mentioned two different logical fallacies neither of which applied! You could have easily said: "Correlation does not imply causation". Instead, you chose to mention phrases you clearly don't understand.

And Again, my argument isn't that a correlation implies causation. It's that your actions fit the definition of bias, or stated in another way, that you actions preclude you from being considered "neutral". No "causation", just utter failure in the English (not mention Latin) language on your part.


Look man, I really don't care.


As if I gave a shit if you cared or not... I'm not here to amuse you. In fact, I prefer if you don't care. I like wasting your time.


You're just annoying and being rather idiotic about the whole thing from my point of view.

I don't about it's annoying having someone point out how biased you were being when you made baseless accusation you still haven't substantiated. That's my job: annoy dishonest cunts like you.

I really don't care. I'm not even reading it anymore. Good day sir.

I really don't care. I'm not even reading it anymore. Good day sir.

Great, I can keep pointing out how a dishonest piece of shit you are without being interrupted. Signs you're clearly not neutral:


1. Don't examine sources that agree with you:

The website you linked to, the basis of this thread, proved to be an utter failure. It bought into claims that turned out to be completely baseless. The divorce papers don't put into question Obama's birth much less say he was born in Kenya.


All they had was a meaningless claim, and you bought it and it failed.


2. Making allegations which you then continue to avoid supporting:

You base your non-neutral belief that he is not a Citizen on the "amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records" yet you provide absolutely no evidence for that. Neither, as far as I can see, the blog you link to which makes the same unsubstantiated claims.

3. Convenient burdens of proof:

When it comes to believing the ridiculous things you do (i.e. believing the website and believing the claim that Obama has spent "a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate" all without providing any evidence for those, yet I provided you a scanned copy of the newspaper announcing Obama's birth and you want it to be proven in a court of law.

You believe both the website and the claim that Obama is delibertly spending a fortune impeding people from getting the truth without any court of law establishing it but when it comes to a scanned copy of the newspaper article, you suddenly require it to be proven in the courts!


P.S. I would appreciate if you keep bumping the thread with these childish "I don't care" responses. It will help get my post accross.

Kthx.

I didn't see this thread until just now. I'm so glad it was bumped, because I am going to present Rust with a medal for getting his point "accross" to a bunch of shaggy, dope-addled pukes.

Personally the way I see the whole ordeal is below. Granted I wasn't really paying attention to him but okay this is how I feel after having this long pointless debate over my opinions which Rust seems to have Miss Cleo feelings about:

I believe this and this - me.
No you don't you only believe one - Rust
No, I just said there is more than one - me
Nuh uh you believe what I think you believe because of the issues you discussed - Rust
That's a logical fallacy - Me
Nuh uh that logical fallacy has nothing to do with anything - Rust
But it does, here is how - me
Oh yeah, if you take it that way it could but we're going to take it another way lets also talk about courts & accusations and other shit that has no real meaning because you already stated your neutrality on the issue - Rust
This is going no where - Me
blah blah blah blah blah - Rust
Whatever! Just shut up already - me
Yada yada yada - Rust
Kthx. - me
Omfg Rust let me suck your cock - Vlad

:)

1. I'm not arguing what you believe. That would be stupid since I don't know what you believe... which I'm guessing is why you chose to misrepresent what I did say that way so you could dishonestly portray it as silly; too bad it's transparent so it ends up proving my point.

What I've been arguing is that your actions do not fit neutrality. Making baseless accusations isn't neutral. Not painting the full picture, isn't neutral. Having different burdens of proof, isn't neutral. Trusting shitty sources that help your side, isn't neutral.


2. The logical fallacies don't apply, even if we take them as just talking about "correlation and causation" (which of course you'd want because that way you don't end up looking like a complete fucking moron that doesn't know what the logical fallacies he trotted out even meant). Why don't they apply? As I've already explained, I'm pointing out that your actions don't fit neutrality and that's not a "correlation equals causation" fallacy.

P.S. You should either reply meaningfully or just do yourself a favor and just shut up completely. Your "yada yada yada" crap isn't fooling anyone.

Here we go again.


What I've been arguing is that your actions do not fit neutrality. Making baseless accusations isn't neutral. Not painting the full picture, isn't neutral. Having different burdens of proof, isn't neutral. Trusting shitty sources that help your side, isn't neutral.

Yes I know I can't be neutral because I specifically said I believed that his spending large sums of money rather than simply signing rights over to interested parties is suspicious. This is not baseless it is fact and it's not an accusation it's a belief. Maybe he just found really cheap lawyers and I am wrong.
Then you took a question and said it was an accusation when it was no more than a question of his nature but I did admit it had an accusatory tone but was not an accusation.


2. The logical fallacies don't apply, even if we take them as just talking about "correlation and causation" (which of course you'd want because that way you don't end up looking like a complete fucking moron that doesn't know what the logical fallacies he trotted out even meant). Why don't they apply? As I've already explained, I'm pointing out that your actions don't fit neutrality and that's not a "correlation equals causation" fallacy.

Lets explain it again. This time I copy/paste and bold important parts for you.

The cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy can be expressed as follows:

* A occurs in correlation with B.
* Therefore, A causes B.

In this type of logical fallacy, one makes a premature conclusion about causality after observing only a correlation between two or more factors.

Your argument about "same time" regarding the fallacy was when I first figured you for a moron hell bent on simply arguing regardless of what you knew or not. I just stopped really reading your posts or responding seriously after that.

By the way the fallacy fits. You are intentionally changing what was actually said to fit the argument. What was said is as follows:
BY Rust:
That only helps my case! You are not neutral since you conveniently fail to present the entire case!
What exactly is your case anyways? I know you say, very clearly, that I am not neutral because [insert argument here]......but how do you really feel?
To which I posted
BY Me:
You are illogical which is unlike you. Just because I do not present the entire case does not establish my standing. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you should know this.
Granted I had to correct the statement but this was what we were originally arguing over and it's fucking stupid and the logical fallacy fits it perfectly.

P.S. You should either reply meaningfully or just do yourself a favor and just shut up completely. Your "yada yada yada" crap isn't fooling anyone.

I really meant that part. I stopped reading after a certain point. I could read & respond but why? So you can read and respond and we can argue about each others arguments and logic and other stupid bullshit that has no real fucking point?

Yes I know I can't be neutral because I specifically said I believed that his spending large sums of money rather than simply signing rights over to interested parties is suspicious. This is not baseless it is fact and it's not an accusation it's a belief. Maybe he just found really cheap lawyers and I am wrong.
Then you took a question and said it was an accusation when it was no more than a question of his nature but I did admit it had an accusatory tone but was not an accusation.

1. Specifically mentioned various reasons why your actions don't fit neutrality and you ignored many of them.

2. You made an accusation. You accused Obama of spending large amounts of money hiding his birth records. That that is also your beliefs does not change that it's a claim you made ("the amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records" and "He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate.") against another person.

3. It is baseless because you haven't provided any evidence for that claim, even after I requested you do so. Where is the evidence?

4. The question wasn't the problem. It was the accusations you've made before that that sunk you. The accusatory tone of the question is just icing on the cake.



Your argument about "same time" regarding the fallacy was when I first figured you for a moron hell bent on simply arguing regardless of what you knew or not. I just stopped really reading your posts or responding seriously after that.

By the way the fallacy fits. You are intentionally changing what was actually said to fit the argument. What was said is as follows:


I mentioned the "same time" because you had already used another related fallacy incorrectly, remember? You used Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc like a moron. I pointed out How "cum" here ("With") would not really change the problem since the form of the fallacy stays the same with the only difference being that "before" becomes "with". That's why I pointed it out.

After you began talking about the general "correlation equals causation" fallacy, I pointed out how I'm not arguing correleation or causation, thus it still doesn't fit.



What exactly is your case anyways? I know you say, very clearly, that I am not neutral because [insert argument here]......but how do you really feel?
To which I posted

Granted I had to correct the statement but this was what we were originally arguing over and it's fucking stupid and the logical fallacy fits it perfectly.

Nothing you quoted changes anything; in fact it helps my case. I was showing how you're not neutral based on your actions. What actions? Among them, deliberatly not presenting the full story.

That does not have to do with me arguing that correltion equals causation. I'm arguing how not presenting the full story does not fit what neutrality entails. Thus, because you did not present the full story you are not neutral.

Just like if a man doesn't run, he's not a runner. There is no "correlation equals causation" fallacy there...


I really meant that part. I stopped reading after a certain point. I could read & respond but why? So you can read and respond and we can argue about each others arguments and logic and other stupid bullshit that has no real fucking point?

Nobody gives a shit.

Rust, Dread_Lord.

Pistols at dawn? plz?

Rust, Dread_Lord.

Pistols at dawn? plz?

Pistols?

PISTOLS?

PISTOLS?!!!!

/falls over laughing

Please, these niggas would just slap each other like the two flaming homosexuals they are. "Oh Muh Gawd, Rust, stop being so mean! /sissy slap" "No U! Dread Lord, stop being such a jerky-pants! /sissy slaps back"

1. Specifically mentioned various reasons why your actions don't fit neutrality and you ignored many of them.

I didn't ignore many of them. I don't think I ignored any of them.

2. You made an accusation. You accused Obama of spending large amounts of money hiding his birth records. That that is also your beliefs does not change that it's a claim you made ("the amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records" and "He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate.") against another person.

The lawyers he hired have retainer fees of anywhere to 10-100,000 (Sometimes more) dollars not to mentioned their 1,000 and upward hourly fees. He could have very simply just allowed interested parties to access the certificate itself. I don't know exactly how much he spent which is why I never made any one specific claim as to the amount.

3. It is baseless because you haven't provided any evidence for that claim, even after I requested you do so. Where is the evidence?

I don't remember you asking me to do so.

4. The question wasn't the problem. It was the accusations you've made before that that sunk you. The accusatory tone of the question is just icing on the cake.

I made no accusations before.





I mentioned the "same time" because you had already used another related fallacy incorrectly, remember? You used Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc like a moron. I pointed out How "cum" here ("With") would not really change the problem since the form of the fallacy stays the same with the only difference being that "before" becomes "with". That's why I pointed it out.

And that is why I figured you for an idiot.

After you began talking about the general "correlation equals causation" fallacy, I pointed out how I'm not arguing correleation or causation, thus it still doesn't fit.

You're not arguing correlation or causation, I know this. I was pointing out the problem in your reasoning in what you said.




Nothing you quoted changes anything; in fact it helps my case. I was showing how you're not neutral based on your actions. What actions? Among them, deliberatly not presenting the full story.

Actually it does because you claimed the logical fallacy doesn't apply and I pointed out in detail how in that case it did. The logical fallacies don't apply
Remember that?

That does not have to do with me arguing that correltion equals causation. I'm arguing how not presenting the full story does not fit what neutrality entails. Thus, because you did not present the full story you are not neutral.

I know what you're arguing and it's wrong anyways. The condition of being Neutral does not require you present the full story. It can correlate when someone is not neutral but it doesn't really mean that they have to present it to remain neutral.



Rust, Dread_Lord.

Pistols at dawn? plz?


Lulz.

I didn't ignore many of them. I don't think I ignored any of them.

You did. Did you, for example, mention the ever changing levels of burden of proof?

The lawyers he hired have retainer fees of anywhere to 10-100,000 (Sometimes more) dollars not to mentioned their 1,000 and upward hourly fees. He could have very simply just allowed interested parties to access the certificate itself. I don't know exactly how much he spent which is why I never made any one specific claim as to the amount.
1. These guesses of yours are not only not proof of your claims they are utterly meaningless until you show his lawyers weren't on retainer to begin with.

2. That isn't an answer to what you were replying to, which was me showing you had accused Obama of spending resources to prevent people from getting the certificate. You did accuse him of that.



I don't remember you asking me to do so.You're right. I didn't make an explicit request. I apologize, I thought that you would get that I wanted you to substantiate your accusations when I pointed out how they were unsubstantiated and you hadn't backed them up.

I made no accusations before. You did and I already quoted them for you:

"the amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records"

"He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate."


And that is why I figured you for an idiot. You figured I'm an idiot because I correctly pointed out how the logical fallacy doesn't apply? How stupid of you.



You're not arguing correlation or causation, I know this. I was pointing out the problem in your reasoning in what you said.
How is there a problem in the reasoning of what I said if I'm not arguing a "correlation equals causation" fallacy?

Actually it does because you claimed the logical fallacy doesn't apply and I pointed out in detail how in that case it did. Remember that?
I remember you mistakenly claiming it applied, yes. It doesn't apply because in the statement you quoted at no point in time did I say there was a correlation and a cause. I said that your action (not painting the full picture) meant you were not neutral.


I know what you're arguing and it's wrong anyways. The condition of being Neutral does not require you present the full story. It can correlate when someone is not neutral but it doesn't really mean that they have to present it to remain neutral.1. Neutrality requires you to paint the picture equally, which is precisely what you didn't do.

2. That's not the only thing you did (or didn't, rather). You didn't present the full story, you made baseless accusations, you bought into shitty sources, and put different burdens of proof on the different sides.

You did. Did you, for example, mention the ever changing levels of burden of proof?

1. These guesses of yours are not only not proof of your claims they are utterly meaningless until you show his lawyers weren't on retainer to begin with.

2. That isn't an answer to what you were replying to, which was me showing you had accused Obama of spending resources to prevent people from getting the certificate. You did accuse him of that.

Shut up and fucking listen to me for once.
I HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE I AM NOT CLAIMING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
I. DONT. CARE. If I tried to prove one side or another we would simply go into a longer debate about it and you would believe that I am arguing for that side simply because I am discussing issues that side brings up.
It's not something I wish to do.
End of discussion.


You're right. I didn't make an explicit request. I apologize, I thought that you would get that I wanted you to substantiate your accusations when I pointed out how they were unsubstantiated and you hadn't backed them up.

Okay fine but I don't want to try and prove it it's just logic and reasoning and questioning of character in the first place.

You did and I already quoted them for you:

"the amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records"

"He has spent a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate."


Those are both accurate statements. A rational person doesn't spend more when they can simply spend less in a situation like this. It's very simple reasoning and it's only said to question his behavior as I stated on the outset of this entire thread.

You figured I'm an idiot because I correctly pointed out how the logical fallacy doesn't apply? How stupid of you.

Or because you still can't figure out how it does apply. Could be it.


How is there a problem in the reasoning of what I said if I'm not arguing a "correlation equals causation" fallacy?

I remember you mistakenly claiming it applied, yes. It doesn't apply because in the statement you quoted at no point in time did I say there was a correlation and a cause. I said that your action (not painting the full picture) meant you were not neutral.



The crux of all your arguments is that I am not neutral.
we have A: Your argument that I am not neutral.
we have B: Me not being neutral (your belief).
A occurs in correlation with B
Therefore A causes B:
Or more specifically in this matter your argument that if one doesn't actually produce all sides of the argument this could correlate with not being neutral therefore this causes me to not be neutral. It's a question of your logical fallacies in your inherent belief that I am not neutral.



1. Neutrality requires you to paint the picture equally, which is precisely what you didn't do.

Neutrality requires you to be neutral. It's ridiculous to assume that one would have to go around discussing all aspects of everything they are neutral on. You can have interests in one side or another but be undecided or neutral on an issue. I didn't come here to paint a full picture or discuss all off the bullshit surrounding the issue. If I wanted to do that I would have jumped aboard one of the many topics already existing about it.

2. That's not the only thing you did (or didn't, rather). You didn't present the full story, you made baseless accusations, you bought into shitty sources, and put different burdens of proof on the different sides.

I did no such thing, except for the article in the original post which turned out to be rather shitty, I agree with that. Probably just a publicity stunt.

Shut up and fucking listen to me for once.
I HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE I AM NOT CLAIMING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
I. DONT. CARE. If I tried to prove one side or another we would simply go into a longer debate about it and you would believe that I am arguing for that side simply because I am discussing issues that side brings up.
It's not something I wish to do.
End of discussion.

You do have a burden of proof. You get one the moment you make claims. You've already made claims. I already quoted them for you. That you are a dishonest piece of shit that flees the moment he knows he can't substantiate the baseless accusations he made, doesn't mean you don't have the burden. It means you don't want to fulfill it.

That being said, I'm glad we agree I was correct: You ignored at least one of my points.



Okay fine but I don't want to try and prove it it's just logic and reasoning and questioning of character in the first place. There is no rule of inference (i.e. "logic and reasoning") that magically shows your baseless accusation. So we only have you refusing to substantiate your accusations. You can't hide be" logic and reasoning".


Those are both accurate statements. A rational person doesn't spend more when they can simply spend less in a situation like this. It's very simple reasoning and it's only said to question his behavior as I stated on the outset of this entire thread.Except you don't know if he has spent more! I already told you:

a. The lawyers could be on retainer. If that's the case, the same is spent whether he uses them or not.

b. The state of Hawaii determines who gets to see the original birth certificate.



Or because you still can't figure out how it does apply. Could be it. Except it doesn't apply. You want it to apply to save face. You are failing miserably:

The crux of all your arguments is that I am not neutral.
we have A: Your argument that I am not neutral.
we have B: Me not being neutral (your belief).
A occurs in correlation with B
Therefore A causes B:
Or more specifically in this matter your argument that if one doesn't actually produce all sides of the argument this could correlate with not being neutral therefore this causes me to not be neutral. It's a question of your logical fallacies in your inherent belief that I am not neutral. You are mangling my point, and putting words in my mouth. At no point in time did I use the words correlation, or causation. My argument doesn't need it. You are deliberately phrasing it that way to force it into the logical fallacy you trotted out.

By your inane logic I cannot say a bald guy isn't bald because I can phrase it in a similar way. A: Joe is bald. B: Joe has no hair. Which results in: Joe doesn't actually have hair this could correlate with being bald, therefore Joe not having hair causes him to be bald.

It's a ridiculous and blatant forcing of the argument: Having no hair fits the definition of bald. Not presenting all sides of an argument equally doesn't fit neutrality. No "cause" or "correlation" being made. In other words, there is no "cause" being talked about. It's not "A causes B". It's "A is B". Not having hair is being bald. Not presenting all aspects of the story in an equal manner is not being neutral.

At most you could say that "Not presenting all aspects of the story in an equal manner" isn't the only aspect of not being neutral. I would concede that. I was replying to a particular segment of your whole post which dealt with you not presenting all aspects of the story in an equal manner, thus I only included that in my response. But to say it's "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" logical fallacy as you did is jut plain wrong.



Neutrality requires you to be neutral. It's ridiculous to assume that one would have to go around discussing all aspects of everything they are neutral on. You can have interests in one side or another but be undecided or neutral on an issue. I didn't come here to paint a full picture or discuss all off the bullshit surrounding the issue. If I wanted to do that I would have jumped aboard one of the many topics already existing about it.You don't have to discuss all aspects. You have to discuss them equally. You didn't by ignoring a great deal of things that support one side.


I did no such thing, except for the article in the original post which turned out to be rather shitty, I agree with that. Probably just a publicity stunt.Wrong. I already showed you did. In fact, you basically admit that you didn't present the full story (your argument is that that is okay, not that you didn't do it):


1. Don't examine sources that agree with you:

The website you linked to, the basis of this thread, proved to be an utter failure. It bought into claims that turned out to be completely baseless. The divorce papers don't put into question Obama's birth much less say he was born in Kenya.


All they had was a meaningless claim, and you bought it and it failed.


2. Making allegations which you then continue to avoid supporting:

You base your non-neutral belief that he is not a Citizen on the "amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records" yet you provide absolutely no evidence for that. Neither, as far as I can see, the blog you link to which makes the same unsubstantiated claims.

3. Convenient burdens of proof:

When it comes to believing the ridiculous things you do (i.e. believing the website and believing the claim that Obama has spent "a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate" all without providing any evidence for those, yet I provided you a scanned copy of the newspaper announcing Obama's birth and you want it to be proven in a court of law.

You believe both the website and the claim that Obama is delibertly spending a fortune impeding people from getting the truth without any court of law establishing it but when it comes to a scanned copy of the newspaper article, you suddenly require it to be proven in the courts!

You do have a burden of proof. You get one the moment you make claims. You've already made claims. I already quoted them for you. That you are a dishonest piece of shit that flees the moment he knows he can't substantiate the baseless accusations he made, doesn't mean you don't have the burden. It means you don't want to fulfill it.


That being said, I'm glad we agree I was correct: You ignored at least one of my points.

This isn't a court, I don't have a burden to prove shit. Sorry chump. Don't get so mad about it.

There is no rule of inference (i.e. "logic and reasoning") that magically shows your baseless accusation. So we only have you refusing to substantiate your accusations. You can't hide be" logic and reasoning".

There doesn't have to be a rule of inference and I don't have to substantiate to you.
You don't want them substantiated anyways you just want to argue about whether or not they were, so quit bitching about it woman.

Except you don't know if he has spent more! I already told you:

a. The lawyers could be on retainer. If that's the case, the same is spent whether he uses them or not.

b. The state of Hawaii determines who gets to see the original birth certificate.

a. Yes the same being $1,000 an hour. Either way, he is spending money for hours used of his attorneys' time.

b. The document is a medical record and Obama can let anyone see it just like any other medical record. The state of Hawaii isn't even an issue.




You are mangling my point, and putting words in my mouth. At no point in time did I use the words correlation, or causation. My argument doesn't need it. You are deliberately phrasing it that way to force it into the logical fallacy you trotted out.

By your inane logic I cannot say a bald guy isn't bald because I can phrase it in a similar way:

we have A: Joe is bald.
we have B: Joe has no hair.

Or more specifically in this matter the argument is Joe doesn't actually have hair this could correlate with being bald, therefore Joe not having hair causes him to be bald.

It's a ridiculous and blatant forcing of the argument: Having no hair fits the definition of bald. Not presenting all sides of an argument equally doesn't fit neutrality. No "cause" or "correlation" being made.

I am not saying you said correlation, idiot. I am showing you the path of your logic as it applies to the fallacy.

Your example of Joe is more proof of your inability to understand the logical fallacy.
Joe is bald, he has no hair. It correlates but it's also true and therefore the fallacy doesn't apply.

Not presenting all sides can correlate with not being neutral. It doesn't mean that's it's actually caused by not being neutral.

You don't have to discuss all aspects. You have to discuss them equally. You didn't by ignoring a great deal of things that support one side.

Nope. In fact...this is possibly your stupidest statement ever.


ever.



Wrong. I already showed you did. In fact, you basically admit that you didn't present the full story (your argument is that that is okay, not that you didn't do it):


1. Don't examine sources that agree with you:

The website you linked to, the basis of this thread, proved to be an utter failure. It bought into claims that turned out to be completely baseless. The divorce papers don't put into question Obama's birth much less say he was born in Kenya.


All they had was a meaningless claim, and you bought it and it failed.


2. Making allegations which you then continue to avoid supporting:

You base your non-neutral belief that he is not a Citizen on the "amount of money he has spent to hide his birth records" yet you provide absolutely no evidence for that. Neither, as far as I can see, the blog you link to which makes the same unsubstantiated claims.

3. Convenient burdens of proof:

When it comes to believing the ridiculous things you do (i.e. believing the website and believing the claim that Obama has spent "a lot of time, energy, and money blocking people from actually seeing this birth certificate" all without providing any evidence for those, yet I provided you a scanned copy of the newspaper announcing Obama's birth and you want it to be proven in a court of law.

You believe both the website and the claim that Obama is delibertly spending a fortune impeding people from getting the truth without any court of law establishing it but when it comes to a scanned copy of the newspaper article, you suddenly require it to be proven in the courts!

1. Do you have any proof that I have not examined said sources? My god...are you making baseless accusations here?
I know the original post was crap. I even said that just now. I posted it and it turned out to be bogus. Big fucking deal I didn't write the fucking article, get over it.

2. Whatever man. I have explained the lawyer fees to you already.

3. Mhm, but you see one of the statements was made from personal knowledge of lawyers the other is made from personal knowledge of photoshop.
I can't be in Hawaii and go see if it's real for myself and I am not going to just trust anyone because they say something so the court is the only way I have.

Rapidly losing interest again

lol. Dread_Lord is so dumb.

lol. Dread_Lord is so dumb.

What have I written that you find dumb, specifically?

This isn't a court, I don't have a burden to prove shit. Sorry chump. Don't get so mad about it.

Courts aren't the only place you can have a burden of proof. Debates among two reasonable people, is a good example where a burden of proof exists. If not ,we'd get dishonests pieces of shit making accusations left and right and the not substantiating them... Sounds familiar.



There doesn't have to be a rule of inference and I don't have to substantiate to you. You don't want them substantiated anyways you just want to argue about whether or not they were, so quit bitching about it woman.



I don't want them substantiated in that I don't take pleasure in sleazy behaviour being proven of someone else. However, I do want the truth, which means I want a resolution to your claim.


a. Yes the same being $1,000 an hour. Either way, he is spending money for hours used of his attorneys' time.

b. The document is a medical record and Obama can let anyone see it just like any other medical record. The state of Hawaii isn't even an issue.


a. You claimed he would not be spending this much money if he just showed the birth certificate. That would be utterly false if they were on retainer since he would spend the same amount of money regardless of when/why/what he used them for.

b. Wrong. As I already showed the State of Hawaii has said they have a legal expectation to disclose it only to relevant parties. Even if they were willing to let Obama disclose to the public, point number a can still apply.



I am not saying you said correlation, idiot. I am showing you the path of your logic as it applies to the fallacy.

Your example of Joe is more proof of your inability to understand the logical fallacy.
Joe is bald, he has no hair. It correlates but it's also true and therefore the fallacy doesn't apply.

Not presenting all sides can correlate with not being neutral. It doesn't mean that's it's actually caused by not being neutral.



You're a moron.

1. I didn't say you said I said correlation. I'm pointing out I didn't because you keep insisting this fallacy applies. I'm not talking about correlation, thus it doesn't apply.

2. "Not presenting all sides" doesn't just "correlate" (to use this erronous word here) with not being neutral. It is not being neutral, just like having no hair is being bald. There is no "cause" being spoken of. You are wrong.


Nope. In fact...this is possibly your stupidest statement ever.

Then it should be quite easy for you to refute it:

Neutrality implies you have given all sides equal coverage. You didn't.




1. Do you have any proof that I have not examined said sources? My god...are you making baseless accusations here?
I know the original post was crap. I even said that just now. I posted it and it turned out to be bogus. Big fucking deal I didn't write the fucking article, get over it.

2. Whatever man. I have explained the lawyer fees to you already.

3. Mhm, but you see one of the statements was made from personal knowledge of lawyers the other is made from personal knowledge of photoshop.
I can't be in Hawaii and go see if it's real for myself and I am not going to just trust anyone because they say something so the court is the only way I have.


1. An elementary examination of the article would have shown you glaring red flags about is credibility. So either you are awful at in the simplest level of critical thinking or your didn't examine it carefully because it agreed with you.

2. No you haven't. If the lawyers were in retainer, Obama would pay the same if he were using them to deal with the birth certificate issue or if he was using them to dance around the office.

3a.Your personal knoweldge is irrelevant here. How are these two claims been substantiated? One, with nothing, the other with a scanned copy. You accept the unsubstantiated one, and yet demand a court room level of proof of the scanned copy. Two vastly different burdens of proof for different sides.

3b. I mentioned two things you bought into without a similar level of proof. You only mentioned the lawyer bit, presummalby because you could throw that laughable "personal knowledge" bit. However even if we ignore 3a, you still bought into the claims of that website without their claims being proved in a court of law. You don't do the same of the websites that provide the newspaper announcement.

Rapidly losing interest again

Good.

Courts aren't the only place you can have a burden of proof. Debates among two reasonable people, is a good example where a burden of proof exists. If not ,we'd get dishonests pieces of shit making accusations left and right and the not substantiating them... Sounds familiar.

I understand this but we aren't debating the issues surrounding Obama's birth certificate. You are trying to and I am telling you I have no interest to.




I don't want them substantiated in that I don't take pleasure in sleazy behaviour being proven of someone else. However, I do want the truth, which means I want a resolution to your claim.

okay.



a. You claimed he would not be spending this much money if he just showed the birth certificate. That would be utterly false if they were on retainer since he would spend the same amount of money regardless of when/why/what he used them for.

b. Wrong. As I already showed the State of Hawaii has said they have a legal expectation to disclose it only to relevant parties. Even if they were willing to let Obama disclose to the public, point number a can still apply.

a. Uh, not exactly. A retainer is an advanced payment for services it still decreases as you use the Lawyers time.

b. I understand this but one way or another, through cooperation with and consent from Obama & his legal team or by Obama (who will be vacationing in Hawaii) Obtaining a copy of it himself it can be had.




You're a moron.

1. I didn't say you said I said correlation. I'm pointing out I didn't because you keep insisting this fallacy applies. I'm not talking about correlation, thus it doesn't apply.

By Rust: You are mangling my point, and putting words in my mouth. At no point in time did I use the words correlation, or causation. My argument doesn't need it.You are deliberately phrasing it that way to force it into the logical fallacy you trotted out.

=======



2. "Not presenting all sides" doesn't just "correlate" (to use this erronous word here) with not being neutral. It is not being neutral, just like having no hair is being bald. There is no "cause" being spoken of. You are wrong.

Man, you are seriously stupid and either you're just playing games are you really don't get it. Either way it's a waste of my life trying to talk sense into you.

Then it should be quite easy for you to refute it:

Neutrality implies you have given all sides equal coverage. You didn't.

Uh, I already have refuted it. A couple times. Neutrality requires you to be neutral. Nothing more. Get over it.


1. An elementary examination of the article would have shown you glaring red flags about is credibility. So either you are awful at in the simplest level of critical thinking or your didn't examine it carefully because it agreed with you.

Red flags have nothing to do with it. When I read it the first time the part about the phone call set off a flag for me but you miss the entire point. The whole claim is a pretty big one and worthy of paying attention to. That's the point.

2. No you haven't. If the lawyers were in retainer, Obama would pay the same if he were using them to deal with the birth certificate issue or if he was using them to dance around the office.

Obama would pay the same, 1,000$ an hour. I agree.

3a.Your personal knoweldge is irrelevant here. How are these two claims been substantiated? One, with nothing, the other with a scanned copy. You accept the unsubstantiated one, and yet demand a court room level of proof of the scanned copy. Two vastly different burdens of proof for different sides.



3b. I mentioned two things you bought into without a similar level of proof. You only mentioned the lawyer bit, presummalby because you could throw that laughable "personal knowledge" bit. However even if we ignore 3a, you still bought into the claims of that website without their claims being proved in a court of law. You don't do the same of the websites that provide the newspaper announcement.

But you see 3a makes no sense. I accepted one because of lawyer issues I already discussed here. It doesn't come from a website it comes from facts of lawyers. Obama used them, they cost a lot, the problem could have been solved for less.
I don't accept another because I know how easy it is to forge anything and everything. So it stands to reason that if one allegation of forgery is true and then the other could be forged as well and so I wait for it in court. And no, it's not because I want to believe it's because I know how the world really works.

Nothing, from either side, has been proven in a court of law yet you seem to willingly accept factcheck don't you?

I understand this but we aren't debating the issues surrounding Obama's birth certificate. You are trying to and I am telling you I have no interest to.

Yet you still found the time to make an accusation, which is the point. Your accusation carries the burden of proof. If you don't want to fulfill the burden, then fine. It's still there.





a. Uh, not exactly. A retainer is an advanced payment for services it still decreases as you use the Lawyers time.

b. I understand this but one way or another, through cooperation with and consent from Obama & his legal team or by Obama (who will be vacationing in Hawaii) Obtaining a copy of it himself it can be had.



a. It decreases whether the time is "used" or not. If I have a contract that buys your time for the month of December, whether I use you for a case, or whether I never speak with you in the whole month, I still pay.

So if they have a team of lawyers in retainer, they could be paying the exact same thing whether they use them for the birth certificate allegations or not.

b. It could potentially be had if the state of Hawaii agrees. Show me where they have.




=======

It's that supposed to show your poor reading ability? You are phrasing the argument differently than I did.


Man, you are seriously stupid and either you're just playing games are you really don't get it. Either way it's a waste of my life trying to talk sense into you.


Yet you apparently didn't see a waste to make that stupid statement? Right.

You are wronjg and you are realizing it, which explains why you flee from discussion. Again:

"Not presenting all sides" doesn't just "correlate" is not being neutral, just like having no hair is being bald. No correlation equals causation fallacy. The fallacy only rears it head when you mangle my point to force it into one.


Uh, I already have refuted it. A couple times. Neutrality requires you to be neutral. Nothing more. Get over it

... And you're not neutral by when you don't present all aspects of the story in an equal manner. You are not neutral when you put different burdens of proof on the different sides....

You've refuted nothing. You've evaded the points. That's it.


Red flags have nothing to do with it. When I read it the first time the part about the phone call set off a flag for me but you miss the entire point. The whole claim is a pretty big one and worthy of paying attention to. That's the point.

No, that's what you want the point to be because it ignores how you bought into this ridiculous article.

The point is that you bought into the article while you don't buy into other articlers that offer better evidence for the Obama side. That's not neutral.



Obama would pay the same, 1,000$ an hour. I agree.


So you agree that if the laywers are in retainer he would pay the same amount regardless if he uses them for the birth certificate cases, other cases, or not at all? Then I'm glad we agree you were wrong:

"A rational person doesn't spend more when they can simply spend less in a situation like this."

-- Your reponse accusing Obama of spending more when he can spend less (i.e. of spending more than a million when he could spend less by showing the birth certificate).

He would not "spend more". He would spend the same. The money is essentially already spent when they are contracted on retainer. Whether he uses them or not, the money is equal. Whether he fights birth certificates cases or presents the birth certificate, the same money is spent if they are on retainer.





But you see 3a makes no sense. I accepted one because of lawyer issues I already discussed here. It doesn't come from a website it comes from facts of lawyers. Obama used them, they cost a lot, the problem could have been solved for less.
I don't accept another because I know how easy it is to forge anything and everything. So it stands to reason that if one allegation of forgery is true and then the other could be forged as well and so I wait for it in court. And no, it's not because I want to believe it's because I know how the world really works.


No, it doesn't come from "facts" because they haven't been established as facts! You don't know how much Obama has spent. You don't know if the lawyers are in retainer. You don't know if he has tried to show the original birth certificate. You don't know if there are security reasons not to show it. You don't know anything really. Yet you saw no problem making the accusation.


And yet again you completely ignored the website you bought into without it being proven in a court of law. You say it's quite easy to make a forgery... yet you bought into the website that promoted "evidence" against Obama! If you were actually using that - if it weren't just a silly cop-out - why would you believe that ridiculous website?





Nothing, from either side, has been proven in a court of law yet you seem to willingly accept factcheck don't you?

1. I didn't put the level of burden on anyone here at "court of law". You did. That's the point. You suddenly raised the level to a very high burden for one side, and not for the other.

I don't require that the evidence be proven in a court of law.

2. I didn't claim to be neutral. You did.

Try following the discussion befoee you make such stupid comments as that one.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

That.

Obama's birth certificate has been out for a mighty long motherfucking time. For some reason, the "Liberal" Media has been ignoring it completely, and has been running stories questioning whether or not he's a U.S. citizen in it's stead.

It's the media's job to ignore facts in order to cause alarm

I know, I've helped this thread so much, so now I shall leave