Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I notice that you, unlike most birthers, are familiar with the de facto officer doctrine.
Which fascinated me because if you believe you have to bring down the president in order to avoid Constitutional chaos when the reality is that is how you get the chaos. The best thing is to do nothing.
But that's if you don't understand the doctrine. Congress can close ranks bipartisan when it pleases them. We saw that with Snowden. If there was ever enough evidence on POTUS they would simply do what it takes to protect the status quo.
As I said, your anger and confirmation bias are symptomatic. That you do not understand de facto officer doctrine or rules of evidence is somewhat surprising though. These are simple facts of knowledge any American citizen should be familiar with. Certainly when claiming our president is a fraud, against all evidence.
As I said, one of the symptoms of confirmation bias is a refusal to look at the evidence that undermines one's position.
I so thank you for your contributions to helping me make my case.
Let me know when you have found someone who can debunk the evidence for you... I doubt that you will be able to do so in your present condition. Which is fine by me. I am not the one who has to establish that the PDF is fraudulent...
Burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, prima facie evidence are all not on your side. But let me help you out here:
If someone can place a document that is similar to president Obama's birth certificate on a Xerox Workcentre 7655 and scan and email the document in a single workflow and receive a document which contains all the artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of fraud, what would you say...
Not guilty your honor :-) But that's such a hard phrase when it comes to our President now isn't it?
As I said, your anger and confirmation bias are symptomatic. That you do not understand de facto officer doctrine or rules of evidence is somewhat surprising though. These are simple facts of knowledge any American citizen should be familiar with. Certainly when claiming our president is a fraud, against all evidence.
Your argument is that a successful fraud is legalized by latches.
I'm just taking the pins out of the hinges on the fraud vault.
As I said, one of the symptoms of confirmation bias is a refusal to look at the evidence that undermines one's position.
I so thank you for your contributions to helping me make my case.
Let me know when you have found someone who can debunk the evidence for you... I doubt that you will be able to do so in your present condition. Which is fine by me. I am not the one who has to establish that the PDF is fraudulent...
Burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, prima facie evidence are all not on your side. But let me help you out here:
If someone can place a document that is similar to president Obama's birth certificate on a Xerox Workcentre 7655 and scan and email the document in a single workflow and receive a document which contains all the artifacts that were claimed to be evidence of fraud, what would you say...
Not guilty your honor :-) But that's such a hard phrase when it comes to our President now isn't it?
Your argument is that a successful fraud is legalized by latches.
I'm just taking the pins out of the hinges on the fraud vault.
Nope, my argument is that there is no evidence of fraud. The so-called 'evidence' that shows president Obama's birth on soil is however legally admissible evidence.
Hearsay, not so much... Which is why the courts have rejected it several times now.
There we go again. Confronted with real evidence, the poor soul, suffering from confirmation bias, has no choice but to attack the messenger while ignoring the evidence.
But no, I am not an attorney nor do I work for the government. Feel better now? Or worse?...
Anyone with a little time and effort can familiarize him/herself with the knowledge I acquired. Much more satisfying that relying on rumor and innuendo and fear induced ignorance. I am sure you agree... Some may even say that I am using your own words here.
Your argument is that a successful fraud is legalized by latches.
I'm just taking the pins out of the hinges on the fraud vault.
Like he said, you don't understand. It can be left at that.
You have no standing in any argument about Obama. If NBC was your concern you'd be worried about that but that's just a disguise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly when claiming our president is a fraud, against all evidence.