So, Obama not a US citizen lawsuit picking up some steam

[Sqrl]

steven787 said:

Sqrl said:

steven787 said:
Yes, I am being 100% serious. He wouldn't have to see it to come up with some contrary evidence.

You're absolutely correct in saying Keyes needs to prove something if he wants to proceed with this case.  But you're overlooking the fairly obvious point that if he can prove the certificate is fake or invalid he will have accomplished exactly that.  It's a legitimate line of pursuit in a tenuous case, and frankly it's one that when/if he fails to find fault with the document will put an end to his case.  Which is all the more reason to let it happen.

I mean I think we agree on what is far and away the most likely conclusion to the case, but I don't base my view on any portion of the case on the fact that I want it to take that course, that's called bias. Obama put the Certificate of Live Birth forward as his evidence, so shouldn't it be open to scrutiny to those whose argument it would serve to refute? Or are we to set a precedent whereby declaring you have a document and posting pictures of it is sufficient proof that you do and that it is legit?  Certainly reasonable limits should be placed on the depth of the scrutiny but zero physical scrutiny is no more reasonable an expectation than it is to require Obama to prove a universal negative.  While I'm sure you're confident that Obama's word is sufficient proof, I am a firm believer in the following quote:

"If one's actions are honest, one does not need the pre-dated confidence of others." - Francisco D'Anconia

Even if he wasn't asserting that it was fake it would still seem very suspect to me. This is an extremely dangerous standard to set forth where a document is submitted as evidence but only in the form of a photograph or scan, while being strictly off-limits to physical inspection...I should think that would seem odd to you.

 

Why do you insult me?  I don't trust Obama, the Republican Governor's Health Department says it's real.  To question it is acceptable but implies a larger conspiracy that no one wants to admit because they know how stupid it sounds.

BTW, I love the part where D'Anconia goes double pistol on the shills working for Rearden.

The HDH says they have a certificate on file, so based on that it's a conspiracy to question the document? 

Perhaps if they had said "We examined the document and determined that it is authentic and Mr Obama meets all qualifications." You might have a point.  But they didn't say that at all, not even close actually, although now I think I see the point of confusion.  It would only be a conspiracy if Keyes were saying HDH was lying or was otherwise "in on it".  But the certificate could have easily been put on file when Obama was registered when he came to Hawaii. Thus, no conspiracy within HDH needed.

Even if it were a conspiracy, for you to say "Oh this is just a conspiracy" is a dodging of the issue. Conspiracies aren't implicitly false and you don't settle a point of contention by declaring the other person stupid or just ignoring them, you show them the facts and logic proving how/why they are wrong.  Pointing out that something is a conspiracy, while useful for keeping perspective on the discussion, is not a valid logical argument.

You stop a conspiracy theory with facts, not shame. Do you remember what happened to Rosie when she spouted off about 9/11 conspiracies and claimed that fire couldn't melt steel?   Popular Mechanics ( I think it was them) did an entire issue on it and it was later turned into a 2 hour TV special...do you know what they said?  Well I can gauruntee you it wasn't "This is just a conspiracy! Only stupid people believe this!" repeated on every page in the magazine and for two hours on TV.

No I'm pretty sure they left the emotional arguments and appeals to 9/11 victim's families out of it and instead actually explained the situation and the facts in a way that people could make up their minds for themselves because they knew the facts proved their point all without any need to rely on emotional arguments. So as far as I'm concerned every time you go back to "this is just a conspiracy", it translates to "I don't think the facts support or explain my position so I used this instead".  A blunt statement to be sure, but it does no good to beat around the bush on the matter and that is truly what it says.

@rubang,

Absolutely correct.  But, assuming the same circumstances as this case, it would prove you were a liar and a forger, while also transferring the burden of proof to establish NBC status back to you.