Powered by TypePad

« Not Holding My Breath | Main | PC Humor And Obama's Special Olympics »

March 20, 2009

Comments

Charlie (Colorado)

Tell you what, Kim: Show me the original certificate of your birth. I actually asked about that in Colorado; I couldn't do it for myself. All I can get is a certified Certificate of live Birth, just like Obama's one, modulo differences between Hawai'i and Coloro like we spell the states names differently. It doesn't appear that Colorado even keeps the originals any more. Does Hawai'i?

Get a copy of your birth certificate, and prove to me it's not forged. Hell, explain to me how you would go about proving it's not forged. Given the conspiracy you're asserting, that the Director of Health in Hawai'i is in on, the easiest way to do it would be to make a false certificate using their paper and seal. So no forensic examination could prove it forged.

This is why it's a truism in logic that you "can't prove a negative." No matter what evidence I might present, there's no way to prove it wasn't forged.

kim

And the bit about you being paid or being a leftist is a bit outre. I may be wrong, but you are losing this argument. The rhetoric deteriorates, and that is a fatal sign.
==============================================

Charlie (Colorado)

So you've looked at my points and would say that the Fact Check photo session is adequate and that the specifics that the Hawaiian official swore to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii? Sorry, you've looked at it with a jaundiced, shall we say hypnotized, eye. You are asleep at the switch on this one, Charlie. The hypnotics have worked.

No, I've done the opposite: I've worked through the whole thing assuming that you might be right, and still don't get to a point where what you want to happen, happens.

I've also shown that it's very improbable.

As to the hypnotized thing, all that really implies is that there is no argument that could possibly saisfy you; if I disagree with anything you assert, it's because I've been hypnotized. At that point, this is a fugue state, not an argument.

kim

Mine hasn't been called into court, Charlie. Were it necessary, it would be produced, and not some sophistical statement by an official. This is deteriorating rhetoric, Charlie. It is you who are grasping at straws.

Sorry, forensic examination of a valid vault copy would show if the ink and paper is anachronistic or not. This is more irrational rhetoric, Charlie.

An original is its own provenance. Copies must have verifiable provenance. We have neither. Why can't you see it?
========================================

Charlie (Colorado)

Kim, you're the one that's asserting I must be hypnotized in order to not agree with you. As I say, at that point it's impossible to argue; therefore I don't propose to continue.

kim

So why don't you look at my points instead of looking at it backwards? You are hypnotizing yourself, and you even show me the mechanism. Why are you so resistant to the path to facts?
===========================================

Old Lurker

The Forbes LUN via Powerline is worth a read re the road to banana republicanism, and how far along it we have come.

Fits right with the current Drudge headline teasing a NYT story coming about the President's plan to regulate salaries at all banks, many WS firms, and "other" companies.

As said above, anybody with money NOT hiding and waiting has, shall we say, an interesting appetite for risk.

Charlie (Colorado)

An original is its own provenance. Copies must have verifiable provenance. We have neither. Why can't you see it?

Kim, I think you don't even have standing for the argument, because you're not a valid, native-born citizen of the US yourself. Produce an original birth certificate, and prove it is both valid and not the product of a sophisticated forgery.

kim

You have to give up, Charlie, because you have an untenable argument based on hypotheticals. You are pretty good but not perfect. Only TCO is perfect.
===============================================

boris

Kim you should be this hard on TCO and cleo.

Since his mom was a US citizen there are many who will dismiss all other considerations.

sethstorm


I was under the impression that the courts had ruled previously that the government can't tax past earnings because of the ex-post facto provision of the Constitution.

It isn't ex-post facto if it's paid under this year.

They can return the bonuses and be forgiven.

How much money did Kyl receive from AIG to block this?

kim

That 3:01 argument is really out there, Charlie. Look at it again.

It is impossible to find paper from 1961 and ink from 1961 and place it on paper such that it would age 47 years overnight. Unless his 'valid' copy is authentic, it can be proven forged. The science of forensic examination has progressed further than you know. Otherwise, were there a need for a forgery, Obama would have produced one by now. Instead, it's lawyers, guns, and money. How come?
========================================

kim

Sure Boris, but that's not the law. Now, the fact that he has lied, and sworn that he is ineligible, is an impeachable offense. And believe me, if we get to that point, Congress can't save him. It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Remember?

And you forget; I am hard on Leo and TCO. Why do you think they are so snotty to me?
===============================================

kim

I mean 'sworn that he is eligible'.
====================================

Charlie (Colorado)

Kim, as long as any counter-argument is, in your mind, the product of being hypnotized, it's a box.

I'm not the one that's in the box, though.

In the mean time, though, he's why, although I suspect there are people in the Democrat Party who would like this to be more like a banana republic, what happens in the US is different:

NYT:

The chief executive of Citigroup, Vikram S. Pandit, sent employees a memorandum Friday saying, “The work we have all done to try to stabilize the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial services employees. It would affect countless number of people who will find it difficult, if not impossible, to pay back the bonuses that they earned.”

Other companies said they would probably refuse to participate in other Federal Reserve programs aimed at stabilizing the financial sector.

For private investment firms, the prospect that the rules can be changed at the whim of Congress introduced a powerful element of doubt in their calculations.

“When you don’t have the goal posts, you don’t know where to run and how far,” said Thomas J. Barrack Jr., the chief executive of Colony Capital, a $38 billion private equity firm.

Mr. Obama, who initially said he welcomed the effort by Congress to tax bonuses, is now taking a more measured approach. The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the administration would have to consider the impact of the legislation on its wider efforts to prop up banks and increase the flow of consumer credit to families and small businesses.

Read "Obama has figured out that they're screwing themselves on this and is desperately hoping Congress saves his ass by dropping the bill somehow."

AP:

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama's optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.

In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That's happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers' pet projects.

kim

sethstorm, you silly. Look up again the meaning of 'ex post facto'. And there are lots of lovely political reasons for Kyl to do what he is doing short of being paid off. Like keeping Obama in the hot seat, and the Democrats loosing off fusillades at each other. Your naivete and paranoia are amusing.
========================================

Charlie (Colorado)

It is impossible to find paper from 1961 and ink from 1961 and place it on paper such that it would age 47 years overnight.

yeah? can you prove that? or can you only prove that some approaches might identify some attempts to forge a 1961 birth certificate?

In the mean time, you might google some about famous undetected forgeries.

kim

Charlie, your counter arguments don't address my arguments. You've invented hypotheticals that don't speak to the two points I've mentioned. These are: the Fact Check examination is unconvincing and the official did not swear to a Hawaiian birth. You cannot get around this. So why try to be sophistical? Why don't you wonder?

It's not that you've been hypnotized, Charlie. That is an unfortunate choice of words. But you have not addressed my points. You've dodged all around the box, but haven't escaped this logic.
============================================

kim

I think you need a greater understanding of the science of forensic document examination. Obama would not be able to successfully forge a 1961 certificate. I'll assert that.

Again, look at the pitiful legs of the argument you are standing upon now. Are you really trying to argue that Obama could successfully forge a certificate. Then why doesn't he, and show us.

"Show me" is an ancient and useful cry. That's why written language was invented.
==========================================
===========================================

boris

escaped this logic

That's not logic kim. What you got is a hockey stick you claim extrapolates to removal. The rest of us are skeptics.

kim

Hah, 'famous undetected forgeries' is a lovely little box. Show me one that has not been detected.

Really, Chaarlie, give it up. Obama's eligibility has not been proven and until it is, this issue will not rest.
========================================

kim

Nope, Charlie, your analogy is poor. I've shown that the shaft of the stick is not straight.

That's part of your problem. You believe I'm arguing something that I am not arguing, that Obama will be removed if he's shown to be ineligible. That is a hypothetical that I believe to be possible, but it is a strawman for you to erect it and knock it down.

I'm arguing that his eligibility has not been shown, and the two points I picked to argue it were tailored to your belief structure. You mentioned the Hawaiian official and Fact Check right off the bat, and you have not refuted my points about them. So why don't you either reconsider or check those two points? This is the argument you are losing, not the political one about how the process may unfold. That is why I claim you are asleep at the switch, AKA hypotized. It is within your power to move the switch. Wake up.
==============================

kim

Uh, boris has the awkward analogy. Pay attention to my two points, boris. What say you about them?
=====================================

kim

boris, I'm a little surprised at you; you've fallen for Charlie's strawman. I grant that I do believe that if he is shown to be ineligible that he will be removed, but that clearly is a hypothetical that I cannot argue as a certainty.

What is certain are my two points. Actually, I admitted earlier that I'm not certain of them, but they haven't been refuted, by you or Charlie. That is Job 1. Get 'er done, if you can.
============================================

boris

It would have to be a strawgirl kim.

Old Lurker

Rick: "Between Bills of Attainder and legislative cramdown authorizations, valuation models developed by Ouija board have a very good chance at beating black box modeling."

As usual, Rick, I think you get right at what is so discomforting. If we could assume competence from them, we could make plans for defending and maybe even making a buck. When it's rank amateur hour, it becomes really really hard to react thoughtfully. My wife plays A Team tennis and those ladies are killers...until they have to play some C Team somewhere. Then odds are they lose because all their well oiled triple back flip top spins fall flat against a lucky softball from a novice. I have a more crass way of making the same point, but this is a family site...

So it comes down to how silly Turbo Timmy comes across on TV, how childish that Romer lady is as she giggles for the camera, how unreassuring those budget guys are who don't look old enough to amortize a car loan using Excel but are certain their budgets will work. Then there's Gibbs. But no sweat, Obama knows all about "profit earnings ratios" and how finance and insurance do not contribute to commerce.

kim

If this ever gets to the Supreme Court, his ineligibility would be the coup de grace. I'll grant that there is not the political will to get rid of him over it now. You've shown that quite thoroughly this afternoon. But, just you wait. This issue will not go away unless he proves his eligibility and this issue has nowhere to go but up. The believers have successfully been marginalized to a fringe.
========================================

pagar

Has FactCheck.Org ever came up with a position that the Democrat Party did not approve, on anything?

Well, yeah, actually.

There must be two different FactCheck.org.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html
kim

Good point, pagar; sometimes FactCheck is right on. That's why their photo essay on the certificate flew as well as it did. But go look at it.
==========================================

Pofarmer

Yeah, but what are you gonna do?

Try not to fall for it?

I'd say you fell for it back in November.


Cecil,

The problem is there IS a lot of greed on Wallstreet. I think that Karl Denninger at that Market ticker link has that part EXACTLY right. There has been fraud and deception and lies at the highest levels in these companies, and there has been basically NOTHING done about it other than to shovel money at them to make it all go away. Sooner or later enough people on the outside are going to start looking in and think, "What the Hell, if I did that I'd be in jail." Geinther is a perfect example. Great, now the OBVIOUS corruption runs right into treasure. At least with Paulson it was below the surface, but, it sure looks like the AIG bailout benefited GS immensely. Coincidence?

Pofarmer

Here's the deal with the birth certificate. Why not just show the damn thing??? I mean, really. When there was a question, McCain showed his, no problem. Why spend millions to hide it? It's ludicrous. Why no medical records? Why no college transcripts? We have em on everybody else? What I really wonder about, is the whole passport brouhaha. Who's passport did he go to Pakistan on? 'Cause U.S. citizens weren't allowed to travel to Pakistan in those years, is my understanding. And, if it were Indonesian, and they don't allow dual citizenship, he either lied, or renounced his U.S. citizenship to go to Pakistan with his Bud.

Anyway you cut it, the guys a lying douchebag who never had to answer ANY of these questions when they would have very easily put him out of the race.

kim

Are you certain that American passports weren't allowed in Pakistan at that time? I think the argument was merely that he more likely went on an Indonesian passport. I'm fuzzy on the details of this controversy, though. But the business of him lying about his past, and hiding many, many details is true, and appalling. We are supposesd to have a free press. Yeah, and that's likely with turkeys like Jay Rosen as professors of journalism. He embraces bias. Glorifies it. Sad.
============================================

Pofarmer

Are you certain that American passports weren't allowed in Pakistan at that time?

Not certain, but pretty sure I read it somewhere. What I do know is that it would certainly have been plenty dangerous for someone on a U.S. visa in Pakistan at that time. Just one more thing that ought to have been cleared up. Think If Sarah Palin had spent extensive time in Pakistan that someone would have managed to ask her about it?

PD

They can return the bonuses and be forgiven.

Forgiven? Did they commit some sin?

The sin of accepting money that Congress authorized, perhaps?

How much money did Kyl receive from AIG to block this?

I don't know. How much?

Oh, you mean you have no evidence, and you're just making an insinuation to poison the well?

davod

This morning I listened to some of the interrogation of Liddy by the Congress.

One guy - Sherman, from California (A Tax lawyer when he is not screwing the country), spent some time insinuating that there might/will be criminal charges placed against anyone who hid the bonus's from Congress (Does this include Geithner and the FED). He then spent further time trying to get Lidddy to say that AIG would not spend any money defending anyone in the company who was charged (Because he would not want the American people, who are now shareholders, to waste any more money).

Another guy talked in hypotheticals about bonuses in general. He said that if a company made a profit in year one and they paid bonuses he had no problems with this. However, if the company did not make a profit in year two and three the people who received bonuses in year one should give them back?

BR

In Re the million dollars coverup of Obama's missing birth cert:

Charlie, here is a link that perhaps you have not read yet. Obama eligibility tops AOL News. Read through to the end of the article. Your side of the debate is in the first half. Then follows an impressive list of lawsuits in progress right now.

At the bottom of the article are links to further reading.


clarice

Pardon me, but WND is not a publication I'd generally give much credit to.

davod

Obama's Army was out today asking people to pledge to support Obama (Said by one of the participants to an NPR reporter).

Comandante Obama *

Everything in Obama's background suggested he would enact a command economy if he could get away with it, and it looks as if he will succeed.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

*Hat tip Powerline

kim

I don't much care for WND, either, clarice, but that is attacking the messenger rather than the message. It should bother all you fine logicians that you are reduced to fallacies.

For what? In order to defend the Alinsky tactic of marginalizing those who ask a perfectly reasonable question? Think about it.
==============================================

kim

Frankly, I don't care if it is just an embarrassment on the birth certificate. He needs to be publicly embarrassed as the Flim Flam Man that he is. I mean more than is already happening.
==============================================

kim

Well, I read your link BR, and I'd like to hear any responses to it besides ad hominous ones. It's a pretty fair account of the state of the matter.
================================================

kim

I think WND does err in one matter. I'm pretty sure the COLB does identify his place of birth as Honolulu. My point, repeated ad nauseum, is that that COLB has not passed a forensic test for authenticity. Fuzzy photos from Fact Check doesn't get it.
======================================

BR

Dear Clarice, if you don't like the fish platter, how about the salmon plate? Israelinsider.com. I've linked number five in the series.

BR

Oh, and Charlie, that Israelinsider.com article linked above, answers your question to me in an earlier thread about the birth cert and how come when you googled the Constitution for the words "birth cert," you couldn't find it in:

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

*****

From Israelinsider:

"Here is the 1952 law in question, applicable to those born between 1952 and 1986:

"The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act). "Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: "(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; ... "(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years."

That's what people mean when they say Obama's mother was too young in 1961 to qualify under 301(a)(7).

kim

That law, BR, also defines 'citizen' and not 'natural born citizen'. There is a difference, and an important one. This is what boris missed earlier.
==================================

kim

boris is right though, that because his mother was a citizen then people will think he is one. By that law you point out he is not even a citizen, let alone a natural born one, if he were born outside of the United States.
==========================================

kim

On third thought, I'm not certain of my last point. The phrase 'at birth' in the law may imply natural born citizenship. Still, she was too young to satisfy the requirements of the law.

Now, a real way around it, should he need it, is for the Supreme Court to declare the age requirement in the law unconstitutional. Hush your mouth, kim.
===============================================

TCO

Maybee: Of course Cantor voted for it. He's a total two face fake conservative. He voted for TARP also. And he just wants a different style stimulus (almost the same really) rather than fighting back directly. The sooner he dies of AIDS the better for the country.

davod

Updated ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk69e1Vcmvg&feature=player_embedded"> National Anthem reflecting our values.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame