Now that BHO has bollocks'd the swearing in of the most important job in the world...

BoneSoft

One web site? Really? If factcheck.org isn't good enough for me then I'm obviously unhindged? What do they say about the JFK assassination, cuz that's a burning question I'd love to have cleared up too. Why isn't the Supreme Court sending all it's cases to FactCheck? I guess if it's good enough for the DNC... I can find sites that say otherwise, is two enough to trump your one? Or would I need more to counter FactCheck's cool name? You do realize that factcheck hasn't always been right, right?

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

Oakman wrote:

And anyone who thinks that he can or will will have to discover all over again that there is no Santa Claus.

I think that may be a larger portion of his voters and foreign supporters than you imagine.

Oakman wrote:

On the other hand, it would seem to me that he stands a decent chance of having the intelligence and wisdom to ameliorate the effects of this crisis.

I really hope so. I really do hope you are right.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Rob Graham

Did you even read that NON-PARTISAN independant sites analysis of the evidence? did you look at the pictures of the birth Cert from Hawaii, or read the quote from the Head of the Hawaii Dept of health and the registrar of vital statistics? No, just pull down that tin-foil hat tighter. Damn I'm glad I left the Republican fold. You, Stan and Ilion can have it. enjoy. BTW - the cert copies have been provided to the idiots doing the suing. TheY are demanding what Hawaii does not offer: the long form cert. The documents suitable to satisfy everyone else including the US State Dept are just not good enough for them (or you), which is why their suits draw little besides disdain and laughter.

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

Did you just equate my concerns to an Adnan conspiracy theory? Cuz them's fightin wurds!

I considered using Rosie O'Donnell as the other example, but I knew I'd really piss you off then.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

BoneSoft

Rob Graham wrote:

Did you even read that NON-PARTISAN independant sites analysis of the evidence?

Yes I have, multiple times over the last few months.

Rob Graham wrote:

TheY are demanding what Hawaii does not offer: the long form cert.

And I've seen a copy of a long form from the same year. However in this case, I'm sure you read "We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response." There is plenty of evidence to warrant seeking proof of his actual birth place. All it would take is a hospital name and a doctor. Which has been offered by multiple family members, all giving different names of hospitals that didn't exist in 61. And no hospital currently there has any record of him. What's more contemptable, the fact that I want to know or that you don't? I dunno, maybe I've held onto this long enough, and partly for partisan reasons I'll admit. I quess I'd just like to have some of that hope crap everybody keeps raving about lately.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

BoneSoft

You're right, Adnan was a much gentler dig. That hurts Jon. I'm going to go back to work and call you dirty names for a while.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

I'm going to go back to work and call you dirty names for a while.

Now you sound like my ex wife. :omg:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Lost User

minus 100 man points!

___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')

Oakman

BoneSoft wrote:

What's more contemptable

Why does contempt have to enter into it? Unless one of you just got down from Mt Sinai with the answer engraved on a stone tablet, I'm gonna think that there can be reasonable - if vehment - differences of opinion. (If either of you do have that tablet, I'll just kiss this Golden Bull g'bye and say no more.)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

BoneSoft

Oakman wrote:

Why does contempt have to enter into it?

Good question, you could ask my univoting shadow if he had the nuggets to reveal himself. Or any of the people who respond with "disdain and laughter" to an issue that can't possibly be valid since the media isn't all over it *sarcasm for those playing at home*. What kind of nut-job would believe that somebody without the legal credentials to run for president would have gotten this far. Surely there must be some reasonable explaination for why he refuses to produce those credentials. It must just be sour grapes on the part of those who question "the One".

Oakman wrote:

I'm gonna think that there can be reasonable - if vehment - differences of opinion.

Normally yes, but this has nothing to do with opinion. There's a Constitutional requirement that is very specific, and there's a set of documents that would prove that requirement met. The documents have not been produced, or at least have been sealed from the view of us peons for whatever reason. The only room for opinion here is whether or not the Constitution should be ignored. And I wouldn't have thought a true American alive would have considered that. I apparently was way wrong.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

oilFactotum

BoneSoft wrote:

I don't remember anything in the Constitution agaist torture

Cruel and unusual punishment. Remember now?

BoneSoft wrote:

anything of rights offorded by the Constitution for those who aren't citizens or legal residents.

Oh, there are plenty of rights afforded to non-citizens. Like not being tortured for one. :rolleyes:

BoneSoft wrote:

What else ya got?

That's enough. You asked for unconstitutional acts by Bush and I gave two very serious ones. One, if fact - torture, is also a war crime. And all you can respond with is a retorical 'So what?' :rolleyes:

BoneSoft

oilFactotum wrote:

Cruel and unusual punishment.

Interogation for information isn't punishment. But let's assume it could be considered so, now we only need a consensus on what torture is.

oilFactotum wrote:

Oh, there are plenty of rights afforded to non-citizens.

You are correct, I misspoke.

oilFactotum wrote:

That's enough. You asked for unconstitutional acts by Bush and I gave two very serious ones.

Fair enough. We should kick him out of office. Not to suggest that breaking any Constitutional (or otherwise) laws is excusable, but it would seem to me that seeking and taking office illegally is a much more serious crime against the country than giving some terrorists a little more to drink than they asked for or keeping them up too late.

oilFactotum wrote:

And all you can respond with is a retorical 'So what?'

Where did I say that? Nice theatrics, but I said no such thing.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

John Carson

BoneSoft wrote:

And I've seen a copy of a long form from the same year. However in this case, I'm sure you read "We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."

1. This is a general rule for everyone, not an Obama-specific rule. 2. The short form contains all that is relevent, including his place of birth. Apparently the Republican Party is in on the conspiracy too, since it has not challenged Obama's credentials. Furthermore, the Governor of Hawaii (with authority over the birth records) is a Republican. You are an idiot.

John Carson

modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:53 AM

oilFactotum

BoneSoft wrote:

Interogation for information isn't punishment

LOL. Quite the funny one. Waterboarding is torture, not interrogation.

BoneSoft wrote:

now we only need a consensus on what torture is.

We already do. US law and internation treaties define it. The US has had war crimes trials and convicted people for torture. It has even tried it's own soldiers for it.

BoneSoft wrote:

seeking and taking office illegally is a much more serious crime

Perhaps it is. But no one has done that.

BoneSoft · modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 5:53 AM

John Carson wrote:

1. This is a general rule for everyone, not an Obama-specific rule.

Proof?

John Carson wrote:

2. The short form contains all that is relevent, including his place of birth.

Except where he was actually born and who was present.

John Carson wrote:

Apparently the Republican Party is in on the conspiracy too, since it has not challenged Obama's credentials.

The RNC? Who knows their reasons. But plenty in the party have.

John Carson wrote:

Furthermore, the Governor of Hawaii (with authority over the birth records) is a Republican.

One person... Wow. From the various current SotUS cases[^], there are basically three issues: place of birth, dual citizenship, and renouncement of citizenship in Indonesia. Place of Birth "Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth. This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year."[^] "Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health." "Contrary to what you may have read, no document made available to the public, nor any statement by Hawaiian officials, evidences conclusively that Obama was born in Hawaii."[^] The "short form" doesn't answer the question of where exactly he was born, and doesn't prove he was born in Hawaii. C

John Carson

BoneSoft wrote:

Proof?

Let's look at the full factcheck.org quote that you quote in part:

The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

Now go to the Hawaii Dept's web site and tell me where it says that you have a choice of two types of birth certificates unless you are Barack Obama, in which case you only get one: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html[^] It really makes no difference. The information in the short form is taken from the long form.

BoneSoft wrote:

Except where he was actually born and who was present.

This is rubbish. The document for Obama states that the "City, Town or Location of Birth" was Honolulu.

BoneSoft wrote:

The RNC? Who knows their reasons.

This marks you as a classic conspiracy nut. You just don't understand human and political motivation and/or you don't think that a convincing story requires a convincing account of motives. The RNC have a powerful reason to discredit and disqualify the Democratic presidential candidate. Only a fool would find a story convincing that didn't account for their apparent failure to act in accordance with this powerful motivation.

BoneSoft wrote:

But plenty in the party have.

A handful of nutters. Noone of any standing.

BoneSoft wrote:

One person... Wow.

One person along with the whole of the Republican leadership. But it doesn't take more than one person acting against apparent interest to put a huge dent in a conspiracy theory. Like I said, a convincing story requires a

BoneSoft

oilFactotum wrote:

Waterboarding is torture, not interrogation.

Waterboarding is an action, interrogation is a purpose. Even if waterboarding is torture, the fact is that it was done for information, not punishment.

oilFactotum wrote:

We already do

If that were so, there'd be no debate.

oilFactotum wrote:

But no one has done that.

Says you.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

oilFactotum

BoneSoft wrote:

Waterboarding is an action

Waterboarding is torture, torture is not interrogation. Waterboarding was created for the purpose of extracting FALSE confessions and at that it is very, very good. Reliable information, not so much.

BoneSoft wrote:

there'd be no debate.

Untrue. Consensus does not require unanimity or the elimination of debate. BTW the majority of Americans (58%-40%) oppose torture under ALL circumstances. Unsuprisingly, most Republicans disagree(42%-55%). But even with them there is substantial categorical opposition to torture.

BoneSoft wrote:

Says you.

"So say we all!" :)

BoneSoft

oilFactotum wrote:

Waterboarding was created for the purpose of extracting FALSE confessions

Gigantic steaming pile of BS. Can generate false confessions? Yes. Designed specifically for that? BS. Besides, from what I understand, the relatively recent cases your horked off about were done for information, not confessions. However, the entire argument is now moot, the One has decried that all badies will be presented with a warm cup of tea and a fluffy cushion. Case closed.

oilFactotum wrote:

Untrue. Consensus does not require unanimity or the elimination of debate.

So you can just claim consensus and it's so? Cool. I hereby declare that there is consensus that Americans don't want socialist programs. :thumbsup:

oilFactotum wrote:

So say we all

Obviously false.

Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.

oilFactotum

BoneSoft wrote:

Designed specifically for that?

Absolutely. Have you forgotten about the inquisition, The Soviet show trials of the '30's? Manufactured false confessions all.

BoneSoft wrote:

were done for information, not confessions.

Indeed they were, but you aren't listening.

oilFactotumwrote:

Waterboarding was created for the purpose of extracting FALSE confessions

We used methods created specifically to extract false confessions for the purpose of extracting information. Jack Baur not withstanding, torture is a very unreliable method for getting good information. And it is currently illegal in the US and has been for more than just the past 8 years.

BoneSoft wrote:

However, the entire argument is now moot

Thank God. Finally an end to the lawlessness of the past 8 years!

BoneSoft wrote:

all badies will be presented with a warm cup of tea and a fluffy cushion

How utterly dishonest. Tea and cookies[^]

BoneSoft wrote:

So you can just claim consensus and it's so?

No, foolish one. The Geneva conventions(US was instrumental in their creation), as well established US law, and even the polls that I previously sited. And quite frankly, the 'debate' over torture is nothing more than partisan supporters of Bush claiming that torture is not torture, because, if it were(it is), Bush would be a war criminal(which he is).

BoneSoft wrote:

Obviously false.

Sorry you missed the pop culture reference.