Posted on 08/30/2011 4:32:16 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Please explain why someone would have and use the social security number from a deceased person if identity fraud is not involved? Use of this number associated with the individual in question only begins appearing in 1986 (putting the forged and back dated Selective Service Registration aside). And identity fraud goes right back to the alleged Hawaiian birth certificate.
The obots claim a clerical error was committed. Really?However, SSN’s cannot be recycled.
Obot logic is failed.
Can obot and logic really be used in the same sentence?
Can obot and logic really be used in the same sentence?
Can obot and logic really be used in the same sentence?
!
The fogbowers are easily recognizable by their vitriol...the sympathizers are recognizable by their claim to be the only adults in the room, projecting logic and reasoning and that people questioning anamolies in the Fraud’s narrative are somehow “hurting” the brand.
When in reality we know that it’s us (truthseekers) against them (partisans and appeasers).
Lamberth - Same guy that let Clinton and Holder get away with ignoring his rulings. He would insist that they provide information; Holder would ignore the demands, and nothing would come of it.
Now Holder is Attorney General. Properly rewarded for disobeying a neutered judge. But if regular citizens, you or I, were in court, I’m sure Lamberth would teach us a thing or two.
Privilege. It’s Washington. It’s for the elites. It’s not for us.
Pilsner says: I’m interesting in seeing how you use allegations of logical fallacies to prove that BO can be removed from office by the courts.
Ahh, jeez ... boy that’s a tough one. What on Earth can I possibly say to that? Well, let’s try being analytical, Mr. Pilsner. Shall we?
Pointing out a logical fallacy doesn’t prove anything. It disproves an argument. So, pointing out logical fallacies isn’t going to prove that “BO can be removed from office by the courts.”
But here is the real surprise — for you, anyway. I never said that it could, never recommended it be tried. No, that was your comment. And, in case you are keeping track, that was a “Straw Dog” fallacy.
My original point (just trying to keep you on track, here) is that both the Birther issues and campaigning against BO can be pursued simultaneously. They are not mutually exclusive. (Special note to Mr. Pilsner: you have not addressed this point, sir.)
You anti-Birthers, in arguing that only campaigning against BO will be effective are guilty of the Fallacy of the False Alternative. Further, since you have nothing of merit to your argument, you typically resort to name calling (referring to me a “pseudo intellectual” leaps to mind). And this is the Ad Hominem fallacy. You cannot live without it, can you?
Yes, others have impugned your intellect and character. But this is not the typical Birther tactic. We have facts — hard, indisputable facts — that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery, that he is using a fraudulent SSN, that he is not eligible for the Oval Office. And, whether you agree or not, Mr. Pilsner, we believe that a great crime has been committed; and if Mr. Obama cannot be removed from office for committing a great crime, then we are lost as a nation.
That’s it, Mr. Pilsner. Would you care to discuss facts, or would you rather call people “pseudo intellectuals” because they don’t agree with you?
And, about Birthers using your very own tactics against you: Mr. Pilsner, if you punch someone in the nose, wouldn’t they be entitled to punch you back — you moron. (Sorry, got a little carried away, there.)
Well I guess there is no real interest on the part of US citizens to comply with any federal or state rule.
Your point is a supposition, not a fact, at least in the absence of any verifiable data.
Theoretically, one can vigorously pursue both a career as as a leader of the Flat Earth Society, and as a successful participant in electoral politics. In the real world, being a leader of the Flat Earth Society, precludes a successful career in electoral politics. Period. I'm not expressing approval, or disapproval, of that fact, just stating a fact.
In the real world, being a Birther, that is, being a paranoid, conspiraciest, whose world view is mostly, if not entirely, delusional, precludes a successful career in electoral politics. Period.
You disagree? Fine. Prove me wrong. Generate some empirical evidence. Win some elections campaigning on Birtherism. Until then, I'll continue to denounce you as a bunch political Walter Mittys, fantasizing about doing great things, while in fact doing nothing.
On re-reading this post, I'm not sure it is fair. To Walter Mitty. He wasn't harming the war effort. Birthers are BO's greatest allies.
I said: My original point (just trying to keep you on track, here) is that both the Birther issues and campaigning against BO can be pursued simultaneously.
Pilsner said: Your point is a supposition, not a fact, at least in the absence of any verifiable data.
Mr. Pilsner, it is a simple fact — a truth of God and Nature, if you will — that you, I or anybody could work on a campaign and still support the Birther movement. They are not mutually exclusive. And that is a fact, sir, to anyone with a brain. Not that you don’t have a brain, rather I think the problem is that you are an Obot and are deathly afraid of the Birther movement.
You have nothing to argue with, Mr. Pilsner. The facts are on our side. Your only weapons are tired insults and vacuous statements.
It is the Birther movement, after all, that forced Mr. Obama to release a forged document as his birth certificate ... you know, the one that he spent three years and a couple million dollars fighting lawsuits to keep it hidden because it was none of our business. The very one that he is now fighting to prevent anyone from seeing the original even though he says the PDF file was a true document. Does any of that strike you as a bit odd, Mr. Pilsner?
More than half of the people in this country, sir, have doubts about Mr. Obama’s birth place, and the circumstances of his birth. The Birther movement is not a fringe movement. If anyone is on the fringe, it is the anti-Birthers. You are the ones who are losing this debate, Mr. Pilsner; and a big reason why is that you’ve got nothing to argue with but insults. People don’t really like that, do they, Mr. Pilsner?
We are winning the argument, Mr. Pilsner. Today, even David Letterman (of all people) jokes about Mr. Obama’s forged birth certificate. David Letterman! Praise God I have lived to see this day.
I do believe you are an Obot, Mr. Pilsner, and you are terribly afraid that your guy is going to be exposed. Consider this, Mr. Pilsner: Mr. Obama could make the Birther movement (you know, more than half the nation), that Obama could make the Birther movement go away in about a day — the time it would take for him to release his records. Yet he doesn’t. He certainly makes it look as though he has something to hide.
Continue with your insults, sir. Portray us as witless souls living in a pointless dream world, devoid of purpose and sucking our thumbs. Your ad hominem arguments are working against you. Go ask David Letterman.
And if Sarah runs, I will be doing all I can to help her campaign, and I will remain an avid Birther in total defiance of your admonition to the contrary.
Of course you do. If you didn't, you might have to explain how Birtherism better serves the cause of defeating BO than anti-Birtherism. Far easier you to simply deem that I joined Free Republic, back in November of 2000, in order to act as a shill for BO a decade later.
Is your theory that I'm psychic, or that I'm a time traveler? Don't stress too hard over the answer, I wouldn't want you to spend too much away from your reading : )
Yes, Mr. Pilsner, you are an Obot. Thank you for clearing that up.
You see, you didn’t actually deny being an Obot, which would have been simple enough. Further, in your defense you pulled out a tired and discredited Obot anti-birther talking point (”How could his mother have known at his birth he was going to be president”) and adapted it to your situation. That’s something an Obot might say in the absence of a rational argument.
Your argument that if I didn’t believe you were an Obot, I might have to “explain how Birtherism better serves the cause of defeating BO than anti-Birtherism,” this argument strikes me as being silly. It is certainly not born of one who actually thinks things through.
There is nothing about my believing you are an Obot that would prevent me, or anyone, from pointing out the merits or demerits of either side. How vacuous.
Sadly, sir, you still don’t get it. Birtherism is not antithetical to campaigning against Mr. Obama. It is not one or the other. You want to frame the argument that way because you fear that the Birther movement will be Mr. Obama’s undoing. And that makes you an Obot.
On a more personal note, sir, I want to thank you for sharing your insights and, more especially, your contributions to rational discourse. All the best, sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.