Supreme Court to Hear Case on Obama

[Esther]

Originally Posted by coadie

You are off the hook. snopes was shown to be wrong by me. Obama shows snopes to be wrong and himself to be wrong.

"Twisp" Hiding behind a screen name? Don't you say people that do that are what?

yeppers you have a real out in the open screen name to hide behind.

If there was hard evidence, it would be released by now? Wrong. Obama says he was born at Queens, now he send a letter to a different hospital and says he was born there. When you are wrong, you never want to prove that with hard evidence.
we call that saving face.

Careful some here think snopes is like the bible here.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Esther

Careful some here think snopes is like the bible here.

From an academic view point, they are very liberal and share that liberal view on snide additions to comments when info from the left is questioned.
They do not truly investigate. They do the lazy thing and google. People lacking and with sloppy academic research skills are impressed with them.

Your bible analogy fits. There are a lot of fluzziers out there for commentaries that sell people that do not study the bible and interpret scripure with scripure.

The case of them claiming Obama was born at Queens came directly from Obama's web site. They are lazy and never checked it out. Just like the sham trial of pilate with Jesus. We have the same in science. using consus to define truth is about as unscientific as it gets.

Snopes is dishonest enough in this matter just to delete some info instead of confronting error.

In a healthy constructive review, Obama pushing a switch and deceipt demands we investigate. Red flags. When a scamster raises red flags, there is a problem. This is a Christian web site. Just obama's relentless attachment to the criminal scum of society is the largest red flag ever. You don't do business with and for a Rezco, B ayers and a long list of other felons and tell me everything is above board.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by coadie

From an academic view point, they are very liberal and share that liberal view on snide additions to comments when info from the left is questioned.
They do not truly investigate. They do the lazy thing and google. People lacking and with sloppy academic research skills are impressed with them.

Your bible analogy fits. There are a lot of fluzziers out there for commentaries that sell people that do not study the bible and interpret scripure with scripure.

The case of them claiming Obama was born at Queens came directly from Obama's web site. They are lazy and never checked it out. Just like the sham trial of pilate with Jesus. We have the same in science. using consus to define truth is about as unscientific as it gets.

Snopes is dishonest enough in this matter just to delete some info instead of confronting error.

In a healthy constructive review, Obama pushing a switch and deceipt demands we investigate. Red flags. When a scamster raises red flags, there is a problem. This is a Christian web site. Just obama's relentless attachment to the criminal scum of society is the largest red flag ever. You don't do business with and for a Rezco, Bayers and a long list of other felons and tell me everything is above board.

Exactly!

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Esther

Some believe idiots have bought into he is somehow an American!

IF he is truly an American citizen he would have long ago shown his real birth certificate. IMO

He already has released it.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

From an academic view point, they are very liberal and share that liberal view on snide additions to comments when info from the left is questioned.
They do not truly investigate. They do the lazy thing and google. People lacking and with sloppy academic research skills are impressed with them.

Your bible analogy fits. There are a lot of fluzziers out there for commentaries that sell people that do not study the bible and interpret scripure with scripure.

The case of them claiming Obama was born at Queens came directly from Obama's web site. They are lazy and never checked it out. Just like the sham trial of pilate with Jesus. We have the same in science. using consus to define truth is about as unscientific as it gets.

Snopes is dishonest enough in this matter just to delete some info instead of confronting error.

In a healthy constructive review, Obama pushing a switch and deceipt demands we investigate. Red flags. When a scamster raises red flags, there is a problem. This is a Christian web site. Just obama's relentless attachment to the criminal scum of society is the largest red flag ever. You don't do business with and for a Rezco, B ayers and a long list of other felons and tell me everything is above board.

That was one small item that they apparently got from Obama directly. They were not the only people to print that and have to change it. Hard to believe, but sometimes people make mistakes.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Newman

Twisp- If memory serves me right, there were at least two forensic examiners who spoke out anonymously. One of them ended up with an animal with a slit throat (a rabbit)? on their doorstep. Do I know it happened for sure? No. Is it believable? Yes.

But the fact remains; the citation I showed you lays out his/her thought process in finding the document to be fraudulent. It is out in the open for another examiner to contest.

I have no doubt that we would see such article by a forensic examiner disputing this claim on KOS or the Huffington Post, if there was one. And I don't doubt that the Atlas Shrugs website would either debate it or take their post down if it was proven implausible.

Those that gave their real names in support of document; had no real reason to fear they would that they would find a dead animal on their doorstep or be stalked by Acorn or other groups. Furthermore, their endorsement as lay people is IRRELEVANT anyway.

Why not bring on a forensic examiner with real credentials and let him speak for the document? For that matter, why not send it to court instead of paying 2 million dollars worth of attorney fees (likely out of campaign funds) when the issue is brought up in court. Why?

Yikes. I hate looking at posts with typos that can no longer be fixed.

forensic
anonymously

Sorry for being so sloppy.

[rgcraig]

Newman, I corrected them for you in your original post.

You forgot fraudulent - - lol!

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Twisp

He already has released it.

Twisp- I would like to understand your position. Do you believe:

1. The document (original image) released on the internet was real?

2. The document (paper document) that the reporters handled was real?

3. The original image and the paper document were the same?

4. The document shown is sufficient proof of Hawaiin birth even if Hawaii allows for foreign births to documented this way; although the original birth certificate still shows foreign birth?

5. Obama was born in Hawaii? Or it is irrelevant where he was born?


I would also seek to understand your mindset.

6. Did you vote for Obama?

7. If so, would you vote for him again?

8. Are you troubled by his many evil associations? If not, why?

9. Do you agree with dismantling capitalism?

10. Are you employed by the goverment?

11. Do you belong to a union?

THANK YOU for helping me to understand how you see things.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Newman

Originally Posted by Newman View Post
Twisp- If memory serves me right, there were at least two fornsic examiners who spoke out anymously. One of them ended up with an animal with a slit throat (a rabbit)? on their doorstep. Do I know it happened for sure? No. Is it believable? Yes.

But the fact remains; the citation I showed you lays out his/her thought process in finding the document to be fruadulent. It is out in the open for another examiner to contest.

I have no doubt that we would see such article by a forensic examiner disputing this claim on KOS or the Huffington Post, if there was one. And I don't doubt that the Atlas Shrugs website would either debate it or take their post down if it was proven implausible.

Those that gave their real names in support of document; had no real reason to fear they would that they would find a dead animal on their doorstep or be stalked by Acorn or other groups. Furthermore, their endorsement as lay people is IRRELEVANT anyway.

Why not bring on a forensic examiner with real credentials and let him speak for the document? For that matter, why not send it to court instead of paying 2 million dollars worth of attorney fees (likely out of campaign funds) when the issue is brought up in court. Why?

Yikes. I hate looking at posts with typos that can no longer be fixed.

forensic
anonymously

Sorry for being so sloppy.

I agree with you, but from a different perspective. Why don't the people that believe this bring out a person with valid, real credentials and tear this forgery apart, if they know it is? You think Berg or someone would have made that the first priority on their list.

Yes, but it is still anonymous. We have no way of verifying who this person is, or if he is unbiased. If he were so concerned, and if this were the smoking yes, I agree with you. Why don't the people that believe this bring out a person with valid, real credentials and tear this forgery apart, if know it is?

I have not seen any articles where a forgery expert, forensic expert, or any other expert of the like have come out in the open and declared it fake, with proof to back it up.


There have been several public sources that say it is accurate. In this day of "all information, all of the time", I believe if something would have been to this, it would have been leaked.

Just the process one has to go through to become a candidate lends itself to the fact that he is on the up and up. Imagine how many eyes and hand would have seen and touched his birth certificate, from the time he declared, until the time he won. I don't believe the Obama camp could have passed off a fake the entire time.

If it were brought to light that he was not an American citizen, I would be first on the gravy boat to get him out of office. Not because I do or do not like him, but because there are laws that must be followed.

I feel safe and saying that the majority of Americans believe he has all of the qualifications to be president. I doubt he wants to lend credence or acknowledgment to the minority that don't believe he is by prolonging this.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Newman, I corrected them for you in your original post.

You forgot fraudulent - - lol!

Ah.... Thanks rgcraig.