Politics
Birther Heckler in House Chamber Interrupts Constitution Reading
- Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:39pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A spectator watching the House recite the Constitution interrupted the reading during to question Obama’s eligibility to be president. While Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was reciting Article 2, Section 1 detailing that the president must be a “natural born Citizen,“ the unidentified heckler shouted out ”What about Obama?”:
The presiding speaker, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-OD) then chastised the gallery, reminding spectators that they are “guests of the House” and that outbursts are a “violation of the rules of the House.”
UPDATE:
According to ABC News, the the heckler was a woman who was arrested. Her tirade also included a cry of “Help us, Jesus!”
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 694 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 662 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 349 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 245 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 232 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (365)
johnnyfive
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:06pmWhat a quack Rep. Mike Simpson is! He needs someone to hand him index cards to know what to say. See, Republicans are nobodys just like the Democrats were! No one speaks from the soul and with integrity anymore. They are all puppets doing what they are told. Disgusting!
Report Post »Krutch
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:32pmHey dummy, the index card was the House rule as written and was presented for the record and procedure. If you can do better run for office and show us how it is done!
Report Post »johnnyfive
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:55pmPlease forgive me as I do not respond to childish behavior. Although after reading the rest of your comment, I stand firmly in my beliefs that elected leaders should speak the truth and not recite commandments.
Report Post »Patriot Z
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 11:48pmif i understand your last post correctly, theres a slight Problem johnny. Thoes “commandments” are the foundation of the system they are engaged in and every single person in that room no matter what party swore an oath specifically to uphold and defend thoes ‘commandments’ while i fully agree that actions speak louder than words, I beleve every one of thoes peopel need a reminder on exactly what they swore an oath to. remember these people like passing trillion dollar bills they never read. and while its obviously no garuntee it to me put everyone in that roon on notice and on the same starting point. there by there can be no excuses. i think they should read the declaration of ind and BOR as well before every new congress takes in to provide proper perceptions
Report Post »quarter horseman
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:05pmI thank the person who spouted that out, goes along very well with YOU LIE!
Report Post »ConservativeBeauty
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:45pmExactly! Whomever it was…good for them!!! Too bad it wasn’t Joe Wilson again.!
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:02pmWhat is shameful, is that instead of listening to the reading of the Constitution, a democratic rep was tweeting about a birther
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:02pmI like how citizens are “guests of the house”. Shows where they think “the people” stand compared to them.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:31pmBoener did say that “this is the peoples house”
Report Post »Not as a guest, but our house.
Paul Thompson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:01pmWhat really bothers me is that we are now not allowed to question without being ridiculed.
When did we the people lose our responsibility to question our gov’t.
Col. Lakin is the best example of being railroaded into submission.
Report Post »Wdawg
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:19pmCol. Lakin is a traitor to the US. He refused orders!
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:55pm@WDAWG
I disagree. Lakin took his oath seriously, and because he questioned as his oath requires him, he has been unjustly persecuted. He was denied his constitutional rights at his trial, yet we worry about constitutional rights of terrorists who aren’t even citizens and are a threat to Americans. Now, who is the traitor? Obama or Lakin?
Report Post »Cabo King
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:01pmHussain Obama has no birth cert…he was as still is an abortion
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:10pmHe was a botched partial birth abortion that some how lived, to the great regret of future generations.
Report Post »Kastrioti
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:01pmSo how about we change that title to Citizen Heckler or Concerned citizen heckler trying to protest a possible lack of accountability to the constitution in regards to eligibility.
Report Post »love usa
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:01pmIt does not matter, his place of birth. His father was Kenyan and mother American which made him a citizen of both the USA and Britain(at that time Kenya was under British rule), and therefore, NOT ELIGIBLE based on dual citizenship. One needs go no farther!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:41pmI‘m afraid I don’t understand this. One‘s father and mother’s origin is moot, if you’re born in these united States, you’re a citizen, and further, his mother was for a fact a citizen. If you think about it, that’s the entire point of the recent call to eliminate “over the border birth citizenship”.
Birth place smirth place. It doesn’t matter any longer, even if it were “true”, the fact is that you cannot out legal a legalist, nothing would change. Playing the rules by their game is a losing proposition, we have to approach things now outside of what we’re used to doing.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:48pmRight now, the whole issue of Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency strikes me as a political quagmire. Even assuming that the Birthers are right and his election is legally invalid, as a practical matter it is a moot point: I don’t want to see Obama ousted on a technicality; if he is to be ousted, let it be because of his policies.
Meanwhile, I’m in favor of passing a Constitutional Amendment that clarifies the eligibility conditions for citizenship and the intended definition of “natural-born citizen”, so as to avoid a repeat of this controversy in the future.
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:42pm@GhostofJefferson
Let‘s see if I can explain why Obumma isn’t eligible because his father was Kenyan. To lay groundwork first, let me quote your handle-namesake, Thomas Jefferson: “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” In other words, if there’s any doubt as to constitutionality, look at what the founding fathers intended the Constitution to say at the time it was written.
There was a book called the Law of Nations which the founders used as a resource to write the Constitution. It was not just off the top of their heads. At the time that book was accepted by all nations, the term “natural born” meant that a person’s father had to be a citizen of the country. Not the mother, you ask? Well, even Winston Churchill knew that law, as he once told FDR that he, too, might have been President of the U. S. had his father been American rather than his mother. You see, thanks to John Jay, the founders realized that a king could impregnate an American woman. The son of the woman could grow up, become president, and declare himself king. They wanted to make sure that the Executive would have unquestionable loyalty to America. The fourteenth Amendment uses the term “native born” citizen. Liberals/conservatives don’t want to admit the difference. A native born citizen can have non-American parents, but can never be eligible to be president. Obama, even though he may very well have been born in Hawaii, falls into the category of citizenship of the 14th Amendment. He is native born, not natural born.
Now, why won’t the Republicans, who very well know all this, address the issue? I am convinced that a deal was struck between parties when McCain was vetted, and they don’t dare incriminate themselves by impeaching Obama. He is a usurper, and we MUST NOT STOP declaring so. Make them live up to their oaths of office! It is also why the Dems made a big deal about which wording of the Constitution was going to be read. They don’t want “original intent” to be understood.
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:59pmHow can anyone be so disrespectful?
Report Post »akelso
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:14pmHeavy,
Righto, it was disrespectful, but you knew something like that was going to happen. She was thrown out by the Sargent of Arms, which is another correct action. No harm done, but the point was made.
Report Post »xm-1774u
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:58pmgood let them sweat!
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:53pmWasn’t that Nikki Diaz?
Report Post »liriadavila
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:10pmGood joke!!
Report Post »Spawnomite
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:53pmThat is funny.
Disrespectful, but funny nonetheless.
Report Post »coolwalker
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:51pmWhy is everyone afraid of Obama. Someone should topple him.
Report Post »GiGi80
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:27pm“Everybody” is afraid of Obama? Really? And isn’t it treasonous to advocate “toppling” a Constitutionally elected president? To steal a phrase from the rabid right wing: I want MY country back — the one in which people had respect for each other and for the office of the president. In fact, the one in which success based on hard work and education was respected, not mocked.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:38pmIt’s fair game if spoken of in the context of either impeachment or voting him out. Settle down GIGI, no need to get over excited. :)
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:59pm@GIGI, IF the president had ANY respect for the OFFICE, he would show us the valid cert, with signatures and stamped notary seal, and he would also release his college transcripts! So that he does not do that, he has no reason for our respect, respectfully speaking!.
Report Post »Kastrioti
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:50pmUsing the term birther in the title or calling someone who holds a valid belief that the president is not a natural born citizen is just another use of the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals.
Names like that only conjure up a pre-programed emotion set up by prejudicing the public by the press. The press and the president have yet to show proof that Obama was born here. That is a fact. He has not shown his Birth certificate. A certificate of live birth can be obtained by a person after birth without actually being born in the country.
Report Post »Raider1
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:58pmKASTRIOTI
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:50pm
Using the term birther in the title or calling someone who holds a valid belief that the president is not a natural born citizen is just another use of the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals.
NAILED IT!!!!!!
Report Post »GRuss
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:48pmThe Left really does not Care if Obama is legally eligible or not, and if he is found to be eligible, they will refuse to remove him.
Report Post »Kerri g
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:48pmIt.s about time they started learning about the constitution. The supreme law of the land and make decissions accordingly.
Report Post »GiGi80
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:29pmWho are “they”? Most people with a public school education are REQUIRED by state standards to take a civics class, the curriculum for which invariably includes a study of the Constitution. The idea that right-wing ideologues are the only people who read or understand the Constitution is ludicrous. Take off the tinfoil hats and back away from the radio. Please join the rest of us in the real world.
With all seriousness, though, the talking heads who are feeding you all of this fear and falsehood are the true insurrectionists. Read — not just the headlines written at a sixth grade level, but ENTIRE texts. Read the actual writings of the founding fathers, not some overpaid opportunist’s interpretation. I have heard both Limbaugh and Beck tell listeners (to paraphrase) “You don’t even have to read this; I will TELL you what it says.” Shheesh. And STOP vilifying public education and teachers!!! There are good and bad in every profession, but the VAST majority of us really want to help kids develop sound habits of the mind and the skills needed to navigate an increasingly complex world. Do you want an uneducated neurosurgeon to operate on you?? Many of us DO NOT belong to unions (I don’t) and many have left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to teach. Maybe you ought to examine the educational experience endured by those who continual tell you that education equates to elitism. I am 57 and I long for the America in which I grew up — one in which an education was the “American dream,” the two party system was seen as a healthy part of democracy, and one in which people could disagree civilly without threats of violence. . . . And, one it which the ability to master Standard English Conventions was not viewed with disdain. : )
Report Post »Curtis
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:48pm‘…Read — not just the headlines written at a sixth grade level, but ENTIRE texts. ‘
Educated enough to recognize a veiled insult, “ teach”.
Report Post »GiGi80
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:53pm“who continual tell you”: continually, not continual. Trying unsuccessfully to multitask.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:15pmGIGI80
“And, one it which the ability to master Standard English Conventions was not viewed with disdain.”
No comment.
Report Post »GiGi80
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:37pm“Ghost of Jefferson” — Typo. When I attended public high school, “smart” girls did not take typing. I proofread once, but then got distracted when the bell rang and I had to turn my attention back to this pesky job. Actually, our writing rubric would not penalize the writer for “infrequent errors relative to the length of the text errors and those which [do not] interfere with understanding of the passage.” Most critical readers know enough to focus on the content, not on rare typographic errors. Very different from faulty logic or insane rantings.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:46pm@GIGI
““Ghost of Jefferson” — Typo. When I attended public high school, “smart” girls did not take typing. I proofread once, but then got distracted when the bell rang and I had to turn my attention back to this pesky job. Actually, our writing rubric would not penalize the writer for “infrequent errors relative to the length of the text errors and those which [do not] interfere with understanding of the passage.” Most critical readers know enough to focus on the content, not on rare typographic errors. Very different from faulty logic or insane rantings.”
Ah, but you see, you criticized people for the very thing you did in your criticism. I found it rather humorous. I certainly don’t fault somebody a typo, generally speaking, but when they’re going on about others needing to improve their writing skills, the typo suddenly becomes relevant and weakens the position of the criticizing party (in this case, you).
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:30pmI think I’ll stay out of this one, The Ghost is schooling you ******** pretty good on his own, a salute to your wisdom sir!
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:46pmThat was Nancey’s daughter lol
Report Post »jleve
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:46pmSpeaker should have asked, “WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN?”
Report Post »scribbles
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:46pmlol @ CATB
Report Post »jedi.kep
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:46pmAnother idiot screaming “Obama”. Does no one respect order and decency?
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:58pmDemocrates have demonstrated that order and decency is an attribute towards extremism and is considered intolerable.
Report Post »flagbearer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:17pmI do not approve of this person disrupting. He or she was a guest in our House, and should display good manners and decorum. With that said, the Democrats and liberal/progressive communists are calling for all kinds of rioting in the streets (Piven), so conservatives are completely frustrated with our legislators not keeping their oath of office.
Obama’s eligibility may or may not rest upon his birth certificate. The Constitutional requirements were violated because he has dual citizenship, regardless of where he was born. And the reason these legislators refuse to address it is because BOTH parties are guilty of fraud in the vetting process. They struck a deal, and if impeached, practically 9/10 of the 111th Congress would be guilty. Do you really think they are willing to incriminate themselves?
Report Post »ThePapaJohn
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:45pmI must admit, the idea of reading the Constitution for those that swore to defend it is good. The problem I have is, THE PLACE IS EMPTY. Thus, the gesture is empty….
Get to work.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:52pmNot an empty gesture. A “symbolic” gesture and many there know this document very well. The others need a refresher course! Read it everytime a new session begins!
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:09pmGreat idea! Read it every time. It doesn’t take very long.
Report Post »lylee
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:53pmIt’s always empty. These rulers have more important things to do.
Report Post »csbulldog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:15pmI think they should start every day with a reading of the Constitution, it would keep them busy so as not to produce anymore destructive legislation!
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 6:57am$1.1 million for a “symbolic gesture.” The R’s violated the constitution already. Welcome to an R-run House :)
Report Post »timej31
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:45pmThey let them out for 15 minutes a week and they ended up here. What are the odds.
Report Post »TennesseeConservative
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:46pmThings that make you say hmmm!
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:44pmI think BHO should just release the birth cert with the signatures and put this to rest once and for all.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:49pmSo does Chris Matthews … never thought I would agree with him on anything!
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:51pmAgree here, let us put the controversy to rest once and for all. However, just figure this, if they the Progressives let the controversy continue, it is one more thing they can claim shows that the right and the conservatives are made of lunatics and dangerous people.
At least in their own demented, delusional, dried up and deep fried cranial matter they have called a brain.
Report Post »BYEBYEBAMA
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:55pmYou can‘t release what you don’t have! :)
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:59pmAll this would be put to rest if he did. So the question of the day is,Why not put the actual birth certificate out there? I think that it has to be that
Report Post »A) he is not a citizen-
B) he is enjoying the attention this brings
C) he enjoys the discomfort he is causing in others.
CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:00pmI can’t renew my drivers license in Florida without that and more … and yet he can be President and not have to … something just isn’t kosher. This should have never gotten this far .. I understand that some states are going to require this same proof for candidates in the next primaries .. will Obama just “skip” those?
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:01pmMe either!! No tingle here!
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:34pmKate is crazy. There are two newspaper citations in Hawaii on the same day announcing his birth. You are a flat earther when you make arguments like this. This is what clinically psychotic people are committed to institutions for: an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
catndahat
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:43pmUntameable, you forgot D) all of the above!
There’s nothing inappropriate about this incident, whether he is a ‘plant’ or not doesn’t matter. The ability to question our representatives in the very place they make laws that affect our lives is exactly the kind of behavior our forefathers would have lauded.
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:07pmActually the article from Barry is very intriguing. THough I would want to do my own research on the premise and or legal definition of “natural born citizen”. In a nutshel, the man argues that the definition of “natural born citizen” is someone born in the US to US Citizens. Being that his father was a citizen of the UK (as Kenya was still a colony of the UK at the time) Mr. Obama would not qualify per that definition. Nor would I since my father is Chilean.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
Again, this requires research of our own but definitely has merit.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:11pm@ABC
You said:
“Kate is crazy.”
Do you have a degree in psychiatry or psychology?
“There are two newspaper citations in Hawaii on the same day announcing his birth.”
I’m not a birther, I really don’t care where he was born, the point is moot. However, can you point me towards those two newspaper citations, and not towards progressive sites that simply make the same claims you do please?
“You are a flat earther when you make arguments like this. This is what clinically psychotic people are committed to institutions for: an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy.”
Appeal To Ridicule.
Another new fallacy! Yay ABC! Thank you! :)
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:19pmuntameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:59pm
All this would be put to rest if he did. So the question of the day is,Why not put the actual birth certificate out there? I think that it has to be that
A) he is not a citizen-
B) he is enjoying the attention this brings
C) he enjoys the discomfort he is causing in others
By unanimous vote I approve the additional selections
D) he is a self centered SOB
Report Post »E) all the above.
APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:18pmabc
Report Post »Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:34pm
Kate is crazy. There are two newspaper citations in Hawaii on the same day announcing his birth.
————————————————–
Both of which can be faked. I am of the belief that unless you are hiding something or afraid of it, there is NO reason not to show it.
abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:33pmGhost,
When I said Kate is crazy, I was not giving a medical diagnosis, but colloquially using the term to highlight that she is speaking nonsense. If you need that clarified, despite the fact that this is how the term is most often used and that you hypocritically are hardly demanding even remotely the same level of precision from others blogging here (likely because you agree with their ideology, then I will make that clear now. Hope that helps.
I also was not ridiculing Kate, but making a perfectly legitimate comparison between claiming that Obama was not born in the US and claiming that the earth is flat. The evidence for both the roundness of the earth and Obama’s place of birth are public and well-known. To insist otherwise is to demonstrate the same flawed behavior in both instances, namely that one cannot or will not differentiate fact from fantasy. And is is true that such people are often put into institutions for such thinking.
Finally, it is noteworthy that a conservative–who, according to GOP leaders, is more reliably a defender of the constitution than liberals–says that it is moot whether Obama is US born or not. The point is hardly moot. It is imporant, but it is also settled in his favor. There is a huge difference.
And, since you are asking, the two newspapers are: Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:27pmABC< please stop calling me names or refrain from replying to what I say.
As usual you twisted what was actually said so you could pick an arguement. Here is what I said,
All this would be put to rest if he did. So the question of the day is,Why not put the actual birth certificate out there? I think that it has to be that
A) he is not a citizen-
B) he is enjoying the attention this brings
C) he enjoys the discomfort he is causing in others.
Then, as is very predictable you decided it said something entirely different. Just for the record I think the answer is B with a large helping of C and BO is loving the division he is causing in this country over the birth certificate and many other issues.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:15pmKate. Sorry. A reasonable request that I will respect. You are not crazy. But what you said is crazy.
As I wrote earlier, and it is validated on the non-partisan snopes.com site, the Obama campaign did put the certificate of live birth out there in 2008, but then they claimed it was a forgery. If he handed out a paper copy, they’d say it was a forgery. And you say this is Obama’s fault. Did you ever consider that perhaps the birthers are just crazy? That no amount of empirical evidence can disabuse someone of a viewpoint not arrived at with empirical evidence? Try convincing the 9/11 conspiracy crowd that they are wrong. They always can find another variant of the conspiracy to believe because you cannot prove a negative (e.g., God doesn’t exist, JFK‘s assassination wasn’t an inside job, Obama isn’t a foreigner).
Hence, your conclusion is faulty. You said, “I think that it has to be that A) he is not a citizen-; B) he is enjoying the attention this brings; C) he enjoys the discomfort he is causing in others.” But there are other possibilities that you do not admit to, like: A) he has given up trying to convince people that cannot be convinced; B) there are other considerations that you haven’t considered (e.g., privacy laws at the state level) that restrict his options; C) he has made a bet that enough people do not want him addressing the issue that the politically smart thing to do is ignore it entirely, etc.
Report Post »dataweaver
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:34pmAPatriotFirst: I can describe a scenario where Obama might want to avoid producing his birth certificate even if everything concerning his citizenship is legitimate: the Birthers make conservatives look bad.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:47pmABC
Report Post »A) he has given up trying to convince people that cannot be convinced;
I would be convinced, I’m not a birther, I only posed an option as to why there is not an available copy to look at.
B) there are other considerations that you haven’t considered (e.g., privacy laws at the state level) that restrict his options;
I don‘t know of any states that won’t let a peoson have their own birth certificate.
C) he has made a bet that enough people do not want him addressing the issue that the politically smart thing to do is ignore it entirely, etc.
If it is a concern to the people he is supposed to serve then it is absolutely necessary to show it. He is not the president of the democrats of the US he is president of the US as a whole.
csbulldog
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:06pmThe birth certificate is a distraction…release his passport info! His mother gave up his USA citizenship for Indonesian and there is no record of him reclaiming it after turning 18 (or before). He traveled in the 80′s to countries that Americans could not get into, did he retain his Indonesian citizenship. If so you can NOT hold duel citizenship and be President….divided loyalties!
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:23pmKate,
“I would be convinced, I’m not a birther, I only posed an option as to why there is not an available copy to look at.”
THere you go again. THere IS a copy available. I have now sourced the evidence twice to prove it.
“I don‘t know of any states that won’t let a peoson have their own birth certificate.”
That’s not what I said. I said, that supplying the certificate was insufficient (and you‘ve proven it here by insisting that it wasn’t provided even after I proved to you it was), so other steps need to be taken, like taking a sworn deposition of those that witnessed it, but this would violate privacy laws. The Republican Governor of HI has been looking into these options, but has run up against privacy laws.
“If it is a concern to the people he is supposed to serve then it is absolutely necessary to show it. He is not the president of the democrats of the US he is president of the US as a whole.”
Again, he did show it and the evidence backs it up. Are you lying when you say that you think it hasn’t been released when I show you data proving that it has been? Are you unable to believe any non-partisan source stating that he has released it? Do you believe that two newspaper’s announcements of his birth, independently published in 1961, and available on microfiche and published on the web are also fradulent? What exactly do you and the birthers need to see? And why is the standard of proof so much higher for him than for McCain, his opponent, or Bush, his predecessor?
Report Post »
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:50pmABC
Report Post »I tried to click on your link and didn’t get anything. So if you provided a viable link then I missed it. Why are you so concerned about what I think about this president anyways? I‘ll bet you had some pretty nasty things to say about GWB and I’m sure you felt you had the right to your poinion. I don’t like what the democrats are doing in Washington and BO is the ringmaster. Political free speech is protected under the constitution, why are you so eagar to strip mine away, why do you resort to name calling and trying to get into arguements? I called you a jerk after you called me a fraud and crazy and I am a little embarassed I allowed myself to sink to that level. Do you think that if you ‘explain’ it enough all conservatives will slap their forheads and jump on your band wagon?
abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:50pmKate, no one is stripping your free speech, but I am using mine to force you to make sure your speech reflects facts. I don’t care what you think of Obama, but I am so tired of all of these evidence-free zones like the Blaze, so I want to force people who talk nonsense and untruths to be confronted with their ignorance. CNN this evening showed a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, so it was on national telvision, but you’ll continue to insist that you cannot find it even though it is literally a simple Google search away. I repeat. I could care less what you think, but I fear for my country when so many are so woefully ignorant of facts and proud to remain in that evidence free world. So I am exercizing my free speech to challenge yours. At a bare minimum, you’ll be a little more careful about uttering your untruths when people like me are there to call you out even in echo chambers of ignorance like this one.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 9:35am@ABC
You said:
“When I said Kate is crazy, I was not giving a medical diagnosis, but colloquially using the term to highlight that she is speaking nonsense. If you need that clarified, despite the fact that this is how the term is most often used and that you hypocritically are hardly demanding even remotely the same level of precision from others blogging here (likely because you agree with their ideology, then I will make that clear now. Hope that helps.”
In that case the way to word it is “what you are saying is crazy/nonsense”, not “Kate is crazy”. You’re wanting to have it both ways, you wish to use words that unequivocally accuse and belittle, while falling back on “but I meant what she was saying” or “I only work with probabilities”. You’re trying to walk down two paths rhetorically, and I suspect, for this very reason; so you cannot be held to account for your words. You speak as an absolutist, but slipping quickly into subjectivity when called on your statements. That’s not an honest way to debate sir.
You said:
“I also was not ridiculing Kate, but making a perfectly legitimate comparison between claiming that Obama was not born in the US and claiming that the earth is flat. The evidence for both the roundness of the earth and Obama’s place of birth are public and well-known. To insist otherwise is to demonstrate the same flawed behavior in both instances, namely that one cannot or will not differentiate fact from fantasy. And is is true that such people are often put into institutions for such thinking.”
Yes ABC, you were. And you do it on other threads with her too. Please, let‘s not play the Game O’ Twisting Words. Man up to your actions and deal with it. If you mock somebody or belittle them, at least have the conviction to stand behind your actions.
You said:
“Finally, it is noteworthy that a conservative–who, according to GOP leaders, is more reliably a defender of the constitution than liberals–says that it is moot whether Obama is US born or not. The point is hardly moot. It is imporant, but it is also settled in his favor. There is a huge difference.”
I’m not a conservative, friend. And you clearly didn’t understand why I said it was moot. That‘s fine though because I clearly didn’t give a reason for my statement and I should have. I meant it was moot because even if it was discovered by a third party that he was not born here, the legal process to get him removed, at this point, would extend beyond his term in office. Nothing happens quickly in courts, and since there would be an army of lawyers on both sides battling it out and dicing every single word “is” to exhaustion, the odds of him shrugging and saying “yeah, you got me, I’ll resign” would be slim to none. Hope that helps.
You said:
“And, since you are asking, the two newspapers are: Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser.”
Thanks. From the day of his birth I assume (or close)? Do you have actual links to those newspapers at the time? It’s not as if I can travel to Hawaii, and assuming you’re in not in Hawaii (?), then clearly you got the information somehow directly, right?
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 1:02pmGhost, you’re not my friend, so don’t use that word. I apologized to Kate, and unless you can read my mind and know what was intended and what was a slip of the keyboard, please do not call me dishonest for correcting the record. Finally, I don’t care whether you are a conservative or not. But I do care whether you use words and facts to illuminate or confuse. I think you do the latter. For example: Kate called him a fraud, and one of the three examples she raised was his place of birth. This birther argument is the easiest to destroy because the certificate of live birth was released by Obama in ‘08, and it was posted live on CNN as recently as last night. That you are requesting another link to it from the two newspapers in HI, which both and independently posted announcements of his birth on August 5, 1961 shows that you are impervious to empirical evidence. And you set impossible burdens of proof for other people, which are not productive except as a nerdy high school debater. Don’t believe me? You say that I need to prove that the heckler in the House was not a conservative. Think about that for a second, and then tell me or anyone in the world how that could be done. It can’t. And this is why there are still people demanding proof that Bush didn’t knock down the towers at 9/11 or that the US government didn’t kill Kennedy. For someone so facile with words, you sure do not think very well.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 2:10pm@ABC
“Ghost, you’re not my friend, so don’t use that word.”
You’re quite touchy this afternoon. Hopefully it’s not a bad day for you?
“I apologized to Kate”
And thus my argument with you ends. See? That’s all it took, you cleaning up your act and trying to be civil.
“, and unless you can read my mind and know what was intended and what was a slip of the keyboard, please do not call me dishonest for correcting the record. ”
You’ve called me liar directly on other threads, however, I don’t think “Kate is crazy” was a slip of the keyboard. But since you’ve recognized your error and apologized to her, that’s water under the bridge, chief.
“Finally, I don’t care whether you are a conservative or not. But I do care whether you use words and facts to illuminate or confuse. I think you do the latter. ”
I suspect that you’ll always see my confronting you this way. Debating with people who don’t allow themselves to be open to the standard argument from pathos and ad hominem kind of deflates a lot of liberal rhetoric right off the bat. It has to be confusing I’m certain. :)
“For example: Kate called him a fraud, and one of the three examples she raised was his place of birth. This birther argument is the easiest to destroy because the certificate of live birth was released by Obama in ‘08, and it was posted live on CNN as recently as last night. ”
Ok, I’m not even on the “birther” side of the debate. Why does this matter to me?
“That you are requesting another link to it from the two newspapers in HI, which both and independently posted announcements of his birth on August 5, 1961 shows that you are impervious to empirical evidence.”
Um, no, you cited two newspapers, which is fine. I asked the date (I have no idea how any newspaper sets its birth announcements to be honest) and if you had a link to those specific issues, since I do not. It was a request for help, not a refutation of your citation. Calm down fella, there’s no reason to get so wound up over this.
“And you set impossible burdens of proof for other people, which are not productive except as a nerdy high school debater. ”
Here’s our discussion on that topic thus far:
You: “Clouds contain elements of hydrogen.”
Me: “Show me.”
You: “You ask impossible standards of proof!”
“Don’t believe me? You say that I need to prove that the heckler in the House was not a conservative. ”
Bzzt, wrong guy, sorry. I asked you to back up your own claim that he was not a progressive. Scroll up, it’s right there. And I’ve already corrected you on the notion that “if not progressive then conservative”.
“Think about that for a second, and then tell me or anyone in the world how that could be done. ”
I don’t think asking you to answer a question I never asked could be done, good point chief! :)
“It can’t. ”
Exactly! Good catch! I definitely cannot demand that you provide proof of a statement you have not made. Dang golly, you’re good bro. :)
“And this is why there are still people demanding proof that Bush didn’t knock down the towers at 9/11 or that the US government didn’t kill Kennedy. For someone so facile with words, you sure do not think very well.”
It’s strange that asking you a simple question to prove an absolutist statement puts you in such an emotional tizzy. Why is that? Let it go guy. You were called on ad hominem and on making an absolutist statement without qualifications. You’ve admitted to the lead in ad hominem and apologized for your error to Kate, which is commendable, and now you‘ve been shown that you’re back peddling on your second argument and are trying desperately to move the goal posts and change the question. To me, that has “win” written all over it from my vantage point. All in all a good day really, there’s no reason for you to continue the ad hominem, as I said, it doesn’t really bother me one way or the other.
Hope you have a great afternoon chief, and a wonderful weekend. :)
Report Post »FIREDUDE
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 3:45pmABC YOU DID IT AGAIN…..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
YOU SAY there are two newspapers?????
So now we know where you get all your arguing info from the newspapers????????
I think I just laughed off 3lbs please keep it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 5:58pmGhost, you have even more time to blog than I do. How lovely.
I wrote, “Ghost, you’re not my friend, so don’t use that word.”
You wrote, ‘You’re quite touchy this afternoon. Hopefully it’s not a bad day for you?”
Not touchy. Just don’t like being called what I am not.
I wrote, “I apologized to Kate”
You wrote, “And thus my argument with you ends. See? That’s all it took, you cleaning up your act and trying to be civil. ”
Sure, and then you continue on with how many additional sentences. Let’s be honest here. If you were a champion against ad hominem arguments, then you would have spent two weeks attacking every conservative who called me or the few other liberals who come here names. But you don’t. Likely because you are not really against ad hominem arguments, just those lobbied by liberals. You are a hypocrite posing as a polite person.
I wrote, “, and unless you can read my mind and know what was intended and what was a slip of the keyboard, please do not call me dishonest for correcting the record. ”
You wrote, ‘You’ve called me liar directly on other threads, however, I don’t think “Kate is crazy” was a slip of the keyboard. But since you’ve recognized your error and apologized to her, that’s water under the bridge, chief.”
Hardly, you continue for how many more lines? If you repeatedly wrote falsehoods elsewhere, it could be that I called you a liar. And it very well could have been true. There are a lot of lies trafficked on sites like this one.
I said, “Finally, I don’t care whether you are a conservative or not. But I do care whether you use words and facts to illuminate or confuse. I think you do the latter. ”
You said, “I suspect that you’ll always see my confronting you this way. Debating with people who don’t allow themselves to be open to the standard argument from pathos and ad hominem kind of deflates a lot of liberal rhetoric right off the bat. It has to be confusing I’m certain. :)”
Very odd response. I said I do not care whether you are a conservative (or a liberal), and you argue as though that is the only way I see things is odd. To argue from pathos means to put yourself in the shoes of others who see the world differently, so by saying that I do not adjust my argumentation whether you are a liberal or conservative is strange. Further, you ignore my comment that I care only for the facts and evidence, but we’ve already established that you demand absolutist proof from me but tolerate ad hominem arguments from fellow right-wingers, conservative, libertarian or otherwise. You are a total crack-up. I find this hillarious.
I wrote, “For example: Kate called him a fraud, and one of the three examples she raised was his place of birth. This birther argument is the easiest to destroy because the certificate of live birth was released by Obama in ‘08, and it was posted live on CNN as recently as last night. ”
You wrote, ‘Ok, I’m not even on the “birther” side of the debate. Why does this matter to me?”
The most sensible thing you’ve written in two days. Kudos.
I wrote, “That you are requesting another link to it from the two newspapers in HI, which both and independently posted announcements of his birth on August 5, 1961 shows that you are impervious to empirical evidence.”
You wrote, “Um, no, you cited two newspapers, which is fine. I asked the date (I have no idea how any newspaper sets its birth announcements to be honest) and if you had a link to those specific issues, since I do not. It was a request for help, not a refutation of your citation. Calm down fella, there’s no reason to get so wound up over this.”
And I already gave you the date.
I wrote, “And you set impossible burdens of proof for other people, which are not productive except as a nerdy high school debater. ”
You wrote, “Here’s our discussion on that topic thus far:
You: “Clouds contain elements of hydrogen.”
Me: “Show me.”
You: “You ask impossible standards of proof!””
Nope. It goes more like this:
Me: the heckler is a conservative
You: why?
Me: because hecklers historically have been true to their beliefs not plants, and because this heckler said other things that almost always are said only by conservatives
You: that’s not good enough. you need to show me absolute proof since I have inferred an abolute claim into your first statement
My characterization is not as simple as yours, but is closer to reality.
I wrote, “Don’t believe me? You say that I need to prove that the heckler in the House was not a conservative. ”
You wrote, “Bzzt, wrong guy, sorry. I asked you to back up your own claim that he was not a progressive. Scroll up, it’s right there. And I’ve already corrected you on the notion that “if not progressive then conservative”.”
I’ll concede that it could be an independent, but that’s even less likely than it being a plant. Independents almost never get excited enough to heckle.
I wrote, “Think about that for a second, and then tell me or anyone in the world how that could be done. ”
You wrote, “I don’t think asking you to answer a question I never asked could be done, good point chief! :)”
Yes you did. You wanted me to prove the absolutist claim that the heckler is not a liberal. This cannot be done, and you know it.
I wrote, “It can’t. ”
You wrote, “Exactly! Good catch! I definitely cannot demand that you provide proof of a statement you have not made. Dang golly, you’re good bro. :)”
No, you are…really good. It’s all on the record. Look who is back peddling now. First, you ask for proof of an absolutist claim that you inferred but I never made, and now you are saying that you couldn’t have asked for that, since you concede it is impossible. The games go round and round.
I wrote, “And this is why there are still people demanding proof that Bush didn’t knock down the towers at 9/11 or that the US government didn’t kill Kennedy. For someone so facile with words, you sure do not think very well.”
You wrote, “It’s strange that asking you a simple question to prove an absolutist statement puts you in such an emotional tizzy. Why is that? Let it go guy. You were called on ad hominem and on making an absolutist statement without qualifications. You’ve admitted to the lead in ad hominem and apologized for your error to Kate, which is commendable, and now you‘ve been shown that you’re back peddling on your second argument and are trying desperately to move the goal posts and change the question. To me, that has “win” written all over it from my vantage point. All in all a good day really, there’s no reason for you to continue the ad hominem, as I said, it doesn’t really bother me one way or the other.”
I’m not back peddling, since I never made the absolutist claim. You inferred what was never said. You claim authority that you do not possess to define my claim in one way or another, just like you claim authority to define who is the bully and who is not. But if that what it takes for you to have your fun, so be it. If you think repeatedly saying I said something I didn‘t then that’s your right I suppose. But the next time someone says see you tomorrow, I hope you’ll apply the same logic and ask them to prove in an absolutist sense that the sun will in fact rise tomorrow. I suspect your silliness will not extend to that conversation although it has consumed far too much time in this one.
“Hope you have a great afternoon chief, and a wonderful weekend. :)”
I will, assuming you do not demand that by saying “you as well” you do not assert that I have made an absolutist claim about whether tomorrow comes…
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:42pmWonder which party will get the blame for this – The Tea Party, or the Conservatives?
Would not suprise me if the Progressives set someone up to doing it, or paid them to do it just to cause a stir and give them a rallying cry for turning aginst the newly elected house and senate members at any cost.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:54pmI don’t blame people for being upset, this was wrong. BO is a fraud and a deceiver and he is dragging this country to it’s knees but we must must be respectful where it is required.
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:03pmThis is just inappropriate. I smell a rat too.
Report Post »quiet little lamb
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:04pmI blame gelnn beck. he’s the hot ticket to blame right now. darn you making your voice sound like a woman Glenn!
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:32pmSo a non-Progressive birther causes an outburst, but the biggest problem is the hypothetical actions of progressives… What a twisted mind you have! By the way, BO is not a fraud. You need to clearly state what he did that was at odds with what he promised to establish that. And then you need to show that this behavior was somehow worse than the typical breaking-of-campaign-promises that every politician engages in, including the incoming group of Republicans. To simply say BO is a fraud without any proof shows how terrible your thinking is, a poor reflection on your mind.
untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:48pmABC, you have a lot of nerve insisting that people “need to clearly state” anything since you have a reputation for twisting every post you respond to just to suit your arguement. For the record most of the people responding to this story are saying it was inappropriate to be yelling out.
Report Post »lylee
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:49pmQuiet Little Lamb. You say you blame Glenn Beck, what about Bush?
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:56pm@Untameable Kate
Good thing the House is not located here in AZ, a pack of rabid javalinas may come by to stir things up some. Might actually do some good.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:00pmKate, you have a bad habit of making false statements and then getting emotional to distract people from noticing when you cannot back them up. Again, state the fraud that Obama committed or retract the statement. Silence on your part or emotional distraction as a non-answer will not count. And if you cannot state the fraud, then I’ll take your non-answers as a concession that you are wrong. Facts and logic. If you cannot deliver those, then you are talking nonsense.
Max jones
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:02pmWhat a great piece of fiction we have going on here. Most of you won’t find this post very intresting, but, all of this that is going on is nothing more than a distraction. A diversion. The real story is right around the corner, awaiting the proper moment to appear and blow everyones’ opinions out of the water.
Report Post »THERE IS NO POLITICAL SOLUTION…..although some of you may believe that there is a chance that men can stanch the bleeding, this beast is exsanguinating. This is the will of God.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:02pm@ABC
You said:
“So a non-Progressive birther causes an outburst, but the biggest problem is the hypothetical actions of progressives… What a twisted mind you have!”
While I don’t know what the political persuasion was of the person performing the outburst, the fact is sir, neither do you. It is then justifiable to ask you to produce the proof that this person was not a progressive, since you in fact made the positive claim that she/he was not a progressive. Proof please.
“By the way, BO is not a fraud. You need to clearly state what he did that was at odds with what he promised to establish that. And then you need to show that this behavior was somehow worse than the typical breaking-of-campaign-promises that every politician engages in, including the incoming group of Republicans. To simply say BO is a fraud without any proof shows how terrible your thinking is, a poor reflection on your mind.”
To be fair to your point, to Progressives, he’s true blue and honest to his word and intentions.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:02pmGrizzly squirells, Snow.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:04pm@ABC
You said:
“And if you cannot state the fraud, then I’ll take your non-answers as a concession that you are wrong. ”
A case of Argumentum ex silentio. Very well done, I’ve seen you do it before (to me actually). I applaud your answering the call for the Left to start posting fallacies other than ad hominem. Well done sir, bravo! :)
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:16pmSeveral tired looking gray haired men in a back office somewhere in Virginia ,look on, as one says,
Report Post »“Alright gentlemen, the plan is to keep this crap ongoing in the House for another year or so, that stuff served us well over the last few years. We need a little more time for the bottom-up folks to get their ducks in a row, and Trumpka and co. to get situated. And then,..and then…. we move”.
abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:18pmGhost, all knowledge is probabilistic. The likelihood is overwhelming that the heckler is not a progressive, since there are virtually no progressive birthers. Further, the only hecklers that the President has faced have been true to their heckling–that is, progressives have heckled him over inaction on don‘t ask don’t tell, while conservatives have heckled him on his liberal views (or did you forget the “you lie!“ comment from a Republican politician and the ”that’s not true” comment from a Republican SCOTUS justice?). While I wasn’t there nor know him personally, I have a basis of evidence to support my view. So confident am I in this that I would say the following: should his identity be revealed, I’ll lay you 1,000 to 1 odds that he is not a progressive. That’s all the proof that I can offer for the moment.
As for Argumentum ex silentio, it is not always a logical fallacy to employ that tactic. It sometimes can create a wonderful incentive for folks to respond with something better than the kind of dissembling that Kate engages in. Unfortunately, you have similarly failed to produce evidence of any fraud. Further, while absence of proof is not proof of absence, rational minds do tend to focus on what is proven. This is why sane people do not fear that unicorns will start falling on their heads although it is impossible to prove that they might start to fall.
But all of this is diversion from the obvious fact that Kate has accused Obama of fraud but cannot produce support for her claim. That I have made a reasonable or unreasonable judgment that the heckler is not a Progressive should not distract from that point. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a response.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:31pm@ABC
You said:
“Ghost, all knowledge is probabilistic.”
Debatable and dependent on one’s philosophy. I don’t accept that as axiomatic, even in a quantum universe framework.
“The likelihood is overwhelming that the heckler is not a progressive, since there are virtually no progressive birthers.”
You made a positive claim of authority on the matter. You did not suggest an odds-are claim. Since you made the positive claim, I ask for proof.
“Further, the only hecklers that the President has faced have been true to their heckling–that is, progressives have heckled him over inaction on don‘t ask don’t tell, while conservatives have heckled him on his liberal views (or did you forget the “you lie!“ comment from a Republican politician and the ”that’s not true” comment from a Republican SCOTUS justice?). While I wasn’t there nor know him personally, I have a basis of evidence to support my view. ”
Actually, you simply draw conclusions from a posteriori observations. Hardly evidence sir.
“So confident am I in this that I would say the following: should his identity be revealed, I’ll lay you 1,000 to 1 odds that he is not a progressive. That’s all the proof that I can offer for the moment.”
That’s all the conjecture you can offer, granted. I admit up front that I don’t know who this person is or what they believe. Further, I’ve heard good Lefitsts on more serious forums go on about his birth certificate in a “birther” way, so I cannot take your a posteriori observations as being axiomatic either.
“As for Argumentum ex silentio, it is not always a logical fallacy to employ that tactic. It sometimes can create a wonderful incentive for folks to respond with something better than the kind of dissembling that Kate engages in.”
It’s always a fallacy, regardless of what outcomes you feel it produces.
“Unfortunately, you have similarly failed to produce evidence of any fraud. Further, while absence of proof is not proof of absence, rational minds do tend to focus on what is proven. This is why sane people do not fear that unicorns will start falling on their heads although it is impossible to prove that they might start to fall.”
Straw man rhetoric, rejected. Show me where I claimed he was a fraud.
“But all of this is diversion from the obvious fact that Kate has accused Obama of fraud but cannot produce support for her claim. That I have made a reasonable or unreasonable judgment that the heckler is not a Progressive should not distract from that point. I won’t hold my breath waiting for a response.”
Your very demand for proof was prefaced by calling her insane for even suggesting the person was a Progressive. It’s relevant. You may have to re-order your preamble if you want to try and go further, otherwise, your very argument falls to the ground like a house of splinters in the wind.
Slainte
Report Post »BSdetector
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:54pm@ABC How do you know he’s not a fraud? Maybe if B O didn’t have an army of lawyers blocking us from seeing vital records of his life/eligibility you could answer that, but I’ll just patiently await the personal attacks that you libs use for every response.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:10pm@ABC
One does not need to be something to say something that another might say. One need only to put comment to voice.
I could say that all Conservatives are nuts. So does that make me a Progressive? Or what?
It simply makes me a person who made a comment.
But for your info, I am one of those nuts….a Conservative.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:21pm@ABC, how about he proves he is NOT a fraud, then all of this would just go away, and if it didn’t go away after he proves it, then I will laugh at them right along with you. But until such time he PROVES citizenship with the REAL document (signatures and notary seal), it will not go away, period.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:23pm@MaxJones, it has already started:
2 Packages Explode at Maryland Government Buildings
Published January 06, 2011
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (31) Text Size DEVELOPING: ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland officials say two packages have exploded in two government buildings in the state capital.
Maryland state police say there were no serious injuries. The explosions occurred Thursday afternoon at the Jeffrey Building on Francis Street in downtown Annapolis and another at the Maryland Department of Transportation building in Hanover
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:45pm@ABC, SO, if all science is PROBABILISTIC, then it is NOT FACTUAL, but built on probability, which is uncertainty, and is therefore, FLAWED.
To base one’s sole authority, on man’s science, is to base it on FLAWED logic, and that authority is therefore, flawed.
So, now that you have painted yourself into a corner, what do you say now?
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:53pmABC I apologize for hurting your feelings when I didn’t reply back to you immediately. I went out back to prune my grapes and then I had some business to take care of, I’m back now.
Report Post »During the campaign BO promised the most transparant government in history, since he was elected there have been more closed door meeting that were kept out of the public viev than I can remember.
He promised to strike earmarks from the bills that crossed his desk, some of the bills he signed into law are so laden with pork it is laughable.
No one that I am aware of has seen his actual birth certificate, I can put my hands on mine in no time but his is too hard to produce.
I don‘t know how many examples you want but I don’t feel the need to take up as much space as you always do when you are holding forth.
Have a great day and kindly refrain from attacking me just because I have this pesky business to run and life to lead and I can’t always be there at your beck and call.
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:03pm@Kate
“ABC I apologize for hurting your feelings when I didn’t reply back to you immediately. I went out back to prune my grapes and then I had some business to take care of, I’m back now.
During the campaign BO promised the most transparant government in history, since he was elected there have been more closed door meeting that were kept out of the public viev than I can remember.
He promised to strike earmarks from the bills that crossed his desk, some of the bills he signed into law are so laden with pork it is laughable.”
Very true, he’s even received criticism about this from the Left. Since fraud is defined as such:
“deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. ”
(dictionary.com)
It thus stands to reason that you’ve supplied adequate answers to his call for proof of fraud.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:37pmABC oops I forgot to respond to this accusation,
Kate, you have a bad habit of making false statements and then getting emotional to distract people from noticing when you cannot back them up.
Can you please show me where exactly I was being emotional? I could just as easily accuse you of trying to sound like a lecturing professor going on and on and on until people get worn out trying to understand why you feel the need to visit a site that is so obviously over your head.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:06pmWow. Okay. I’ll let yours be longer. If only to avoid trying the patience of this site and its bloggers.
But a couple of points need to be rebutted:
First, I didn’t ridicule you. I am pointing out that your style of reasoning and your ontylogical view of the world is at odds with those people who have created all material progress. When the priest says that God made it happen, that statement proves ABSOLUTELY nothing and does not further human knowledge one bit. So it is not oversimplifying to say that of the two sources of supposed knowledge in the world–empirical rationalism vs. faith-based divination–only one has any explanatory power that is used in the modern world, except for the hour that people sit in church or synagogue and pray that their soul (which cannot be seen) will be sent to heaven (which also hasn’t ever been observed). You can disagree, but count up the things in your life that have come from rationalism and the ones from divination–there is no contest that the former comprises nearly 100% of your life. (And that includes all forms of cat-skinning.) Nor is this an appeal to tradition, but an appeal to the only authority that has produced material progress. If you can call scientific method an appeal to tradition, you are really on thin ice… I think you are trying to fit each of my sentences into one of your logical fallacies, rather than trying to understand anything. And to do it you have to assume way too much.
I also think that when you do not admit that knowledge is probabilistic and demand nothing less than dogmatically precise proof (or what I would call mathematical proof) as the only requirement to have proven anything, well you are making all proof other than faith-based proof possible. Heck, we cannot even define gravity to that level of certainty. And you know this, since you already referenced quantum mechanics, so now you’re just being dishonest.
You also have a bad habit of attributing mal intent where none exists. I’m sure you know the fancy latin name for this, but it shows bad thinking when you keep calling my arguments ridicule when they are actually accurate observations. You say that I am making a positive statement, when I have already stated that all my statements are probabilistic in nature since that is how knowledge should be viewed. You say that I am playing games when I reveal my intention of using a statement to draw out a resopnse. This is nonsensical and implies that you think that you can read my mind. More likely, it is designed to win an argument at the expense of honesty. I would stick to contesting or rebutting the observations rather than second-guessing what you cannot divine: the content of my mind and its intention.
There is a lot in what you wrote that frankly I found incoherent and other bits that were written in response to selectively edited comments I made earlier. This selective editing is not appreciated, and it makes it difficult to respond to what you are saying to the extent that I understand.
But, again, none of this actually serves to rebut my contention that if you are going to call someone a fraud, then you ought to support the claim with proof. This ontylogical discussion was fun, but not really useful.
Kate has already responded with a shorter and more useful reply. It is on that level of discussion that this site is better suited.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:08pmKate, well to quote you earlier: “you have a lot of nerve…” It’s usually a phrase that comes with emotion. Obviously, I cannot see or hear you, so if I got that wrong, then I stand corrected. Most people I know use that phrase when they are getting emotional.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:12pmABC
“By the way, my feelings weren’t hurt, nor was I attacking you for working.”
You spent at least a few minutes condemning my “non-answer” and saying it amounted to concession of my arguement. I don‘t have time to answer you as fast as you like apparently so you go on the attack without considering that maybe I am just busy and I’ll get back to you when and if I choose.
“I might fail sometimes, but I generally only attack people’s arguments and comments, not the people themselves. Everyone deserves respect as people, even when they are sadly very wrong in their facts or logic.”
So far today you called me crazy and a fraud. I know you are just trying to prove your intelectual superiority, but so far you have only proven yourself to be a petulant jerk.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:17pmCorrection. I called you crazy. And then restated it. Your statements are crazy. And, for the record, you were the one that called the President of the US a fraud. So I wonder who should really wear the “jerk” moniker…
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:27pmABC your arguement that Obama is justified in his actions because someone else did it too doesn’t hold much water. He did what he did regardless of who else may have done something too. We are not discussing Reagan or Bush or Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, we were discussing BO so all your comparisons were unnecessary.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:34pmABC
Report Post »“You can call it what you want, but I will maintain that the only fraud in this instance is Kate”
Love it when you tell out and out untruths even though it is here in writing. These are your words so you did indeed call me a fraud. Now will you please show me what exactly was said that caused you to jump in it with both feet and call me crazy?
abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:25pmSorry, that should have read “…is Kate’s” and should be referring to what you said. Again, I might make mistakes, but I generally attack the statements not the people. In contrast, you likely will never retract any derogatory statement about our current President of the US, and I will not hold my breath waiting for a display of civilty that you demand but do not give.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:27pmKate writes: ABC your arguement that Obama is justified in his actions because someone else did it too doesn’t hold much water. He did what he did regardless of who else may have done something too. We are not discussing Reagan or Bush or Santa Clause or the tooth fairy, we were discussing BO so all your comparisons were unnecessary.”
That is not my argument. That is an observation of the hypocrisy I see in highly partisan people. My argument came in the rest of the post, where I specifically addressed each point you made and refuted all of them. But you have not read or processed those points, apparently, since you have failed to respond to them.
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:38pmABC
Report Post »“you likely will never retract any derogatory statement about our current President of the US, and I will not hold my breath waiting for a display of civilty that you demand but do not give.”
I will gladly retract any statement that is proven false. Please give me an example of a statement that I have made that has been proven wrong and I will research it and if I am wrong I will recant. Opinions, however are not to be included since opinions consist of a persons belief and require no proof. If I don’t like the man then it is my God given right, just because you seem to admire him does not mean that I am required to.
I also feel that I have been more than civil to you considering the way you have been adressing me on this thread.
untameable-kate
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:56pmBTW John McCain was never president, incase you got confused, and Hillary Clintons’ camp started the whole birther movement.
Report Post »donh2
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:28pmI did some research. The woman’s name is Theresa Cao. A twitter under this name is located in Edison NJ which is within Frank Palone’s 6th district. Web pictures show her on the street with Linden Larouche style joker face sign. It would be nice to prove beyond all doubt people like David Axelrod organized this stunt well in advance .
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 7:49pmHahaha, typical reaction.
Democrats do something bad: Those damn Liberals!
Republicans do something bad: IT WAS A PLANT!!!!
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 9:46pmKate, I already have addressed all three of the examples you have cited. Setting aside that you have misstated the exact wording of the promise, you have ignored much that was accomplished in fulfillment of these promises. You have totally ignored the data that I have supplied concerning taking massive expenditures back on balance sheet, the fact the the GOP, not the Dems, blocked earmark legislation, and th like. You are being hypocritical (note: your statements are hypocritical) in that you call him a fraud for not doing things he said he would do when in fact he did as much as he could in the face of Republican obstructionism. And if you really cared about those issues, you would like Obama much more than the Republicans that constantly attack him, including those here. Go research those examples, or the fact that his health care reform must be saving money since the GOP just carved out an exception to its budget rules to allow for an increase in the deficit/debt should they repeal it–this highlights that they know they were lying when the Republicans said the health care reform was not deficit neutral but debt expanding. Or go research how they resisted the student loan reforms even though it saved $4-10B per year by cutting out a private sector middleman receiving public subsidies. There are countless examples, but you ignore all of them, arguing that the made-up criticism carries more weight than tne vindicating facts. Go do real research, far away from Fox News‘ fake facts and then you’ll have to recant. But I doubt you’ll actually get to, much less believe, those facts that prove you wrong.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 9:16am@ABC
Oh my. Well, you clearly hold no fault in your own words or views, and further, you attribute views to others and then battle those words and assumptions (aka creating straw men, which is Debate 101 silliness).
Fact is, you had only one valid question for Kate that was at most 8 words long. You spent the bulk of the rest of your lengthy posts belittling her and attacking her as a person. You then declared, after your various character attacks, that if she left and didn’t answer, you win. Enough to make anybody with even a passing knowledge of debate techniques roll their eyes heavenward and sigh.
That’s the beginning and end of it. I simply found that tactic reprehensible and a form of bullying, as it was. And that I why I took you to task for your posts, which were clearly laden with fallacy after fallacy (describing them in as you say, their fancy Latin terms, heh) and had no substance outside of the 8-ish word question you posed to her.
If you dislike having your words shown to be rhetorically and logically inane, then perhaps the onus is on you to improve your level of debate. After all, I cannot call you out for committing gross fallacy after gross fallacy if you don’t provide me with ample fodder to do so. Discussion can be improved with more civility, no matter yours or my opinion of our adversaries. If you have no interest in “being nice” that’s your issue of course, but don’t expect anybody to take you serious no matter how much importance you attach to your own way of thinking.
Slainte friend.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 10:05amGhost, for all your apparently fancy use of latin-named logical fallacies, it turns out that you haven’t disproven my persistent claim that Kate has made a false charge, nor have you adequately defended your own implicit claim that I haven’t “proven” that the person who disrputed the House reading yesterday was a conservative. Further, you‘ve revealed thinking in this case that is highly hypocritical given other stuff you’ve written on this blog.
The latter point first. You have driven crazy, according to another blogger, with the persistent claim that others are using “tu coque” in their argumentation. Yet here you are attempting to discredit me by saying that I am a name-caller, while never disproving or highlighting that Kate has not disproven my claim that she has no proof that Obama is a fraud.
You also hypocritically claim that you are not defending Kate, claiming I am on my own in my argument with her, but you keep coming back in her defense. Which is it? Am I on my own, or am I battling both of you??
Finally, and most importantly, you have not acknowledged the additional news reported on both CNN and Fox yesterday that the woman who disrupted the House not only yelled “except Obama” but also screamed “help us Jesus.” Since the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans are believers and church-goes who rank religion highly important in their lives, while liberals mainly do not, I’ll add that to my growing list of evidence that supports my contention that the disrupter was not a plant. You can continue to believe the opposite, like the theologians who maintained that the sun went around the earth, using the same kind of faulty logic that you do. But your credibility continues to decline with such shoddy and hypcritical and fact-deaf reasoning.
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 10:07amDonH, those facts are not confirmed and likely not true. The woman interrupted that Congressman, but there is no evidence released that she is in his district, much less a Larouche supporter. Get real.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 12:13pm@ABC
You said:
“Ghost, for all your apparently fancy use of latin-named logical fallacies,”
I find it a source of curiosity that most people from the far left detest people who know logical fallacies and who use their proper terms to describe them. There must be a reason for that, I do so wonder what that reason is (rhetorical question btw)?
You said:
“it turns out that you haven’t disproven my persistent claim that Kate has made a false charge, ”
I haven’t taken up your question with her on this matter. I told you clearly that your argument with Kate is yours alone. This is a mistake you’ve made once already on the thread, and retracted once you were shown your error. Just an FYI. :)
“nor have you adequately defended your own implicit claim that I haven’t “proven” that the person who disrputed the House reading yesterday was a conservative. ”
This makes no sense. I’m asking you for evidence that it was absolutely not a Progressive (which does not necessarily imply that he/she was a conservative, unless you hold that there are only two political belief systems in the tool box of man kind). Your initial claim was an absolutist “he/she is not a Progressive”. The “but but but I work on probabilities, and I meant probably” only came after the fact when you were called on using absolutist language. Two paths brother, you can‘t walk both without being called out I’m afraid.
“Further, you‘ve revealed thinking in this case that is highly hypocritical given other stuff you’ve written on this blog.”
Not at all. I‘ve revealed that I’m not fond of people thinking that they can throw out countless logical fallacies, personal attacks and faulty reasoning all scrunched around one question in order to bully an opponent into submission or fleeing. I do see that you eventually came around with Kate and changed your initial charge from “Kate is crazy” to “Kate’s statement/words are crazy”. So even you acknowledge the wrongness of your tactics. :)
You said:
“The latter point first. You have driven crazy, according to another blogger, with the persistent claim that others are using “tu coque” in their argumentation. Yet here you are attempting to discredit me by saying that I am a name-caller, while never disproving or highlighting that Kate has not disproven my claim that she has no proof that Obama is a fraud.”
And again, I haven’t actually made a claim for or against your one small relevant question with Kate yet. I did note that she appeared to present a rebuttal to your question (ultimately correct or incorrect is up to you two to hash out), but I myself have not taken up the question. Ergo, tu quoque does not apply. And in case you didn’t know, “tu quoque” means that you try to defeat a point by bringing up the hypocrisy of the questioner. In other words, if I am a thief and I say “Theft is wrong” and you reply “But you’re a thief!“ that in no way discredits the actual statement that ”theft is wrong”. It is a form of ad hominem since it tries to change the topic to me personally and does not answer the *actual argument*. So, to be clear, you asked a question of Kate, and further I was not questioning your question and still am not (the fraud/not fraud), in fact I’ve stated several times now, here and in other posts, that the question you were asking was valid. Ergo, what I‘m doing is not confronting your argument since I’m not in disagreement with your question, I’m calling out your shoddy and questionable rhetorical tactics because you appear to be, here and in other threads with other posters, a bully.
That’s the bottom line. I’m not fond of bullies. You consistently attempt to bully people here. I’m calling you on it. I will continue to call you on it, as long as you continue to bully people. “After the fact” back peddling by you will be recognized as just that, a retreat on your part. There you go. Ta da.
“You also hypocritically claim that you are not defending Kate, claiming I am on my own in my argument with her, but you keep coming back in her defense. Which is it? Am I on my own, or am I battling both of you??”
I’ve already clarified this for you. :)
“Finally, and most importantly, you have not acknowledged the additional news reported on both CNN and Fox yesterday that the woman who disrupted the House not only yelled “except Obama” but also screamed “help us Jesus.” Since the overwhelming majority of conservatives and Republicans are believers and church-goes who rank religion highly important in their lives, while liberals mainly do not, I’ll add that to my growing list of evidence that supports my contention that the disrupter was not a plant. You can continue to believe the opposite, like the theologians who maintained that the sun went around the earth, using the same kind of faulty logic that you do. But your credibility continues to decline with such shoddy and hypcritical and fact-deaf reasoning.”
That’s funny. You accuse me of “not acknowledging” when in fact, I didn’t hear those reports. One cannot acknowledge what one does not hear. You are pulling yet another variation of Argumentum ex silentio, you know.
Secondly you invent a straw man “you’re like medieval theologians” in attempt to garner an emotional response. Pathos, I’m afraid, is not something that particularly affects me in a rhetorical sense. I generally consider arguments from Pathos to be nothing more than trying to get the argument away from the topic and onto the “person”, a gateway to ad hominem most of the time (though not always). I do understand however that the Left needs Pathos and ad hominem intrinsically, and I do understand the confusion it causes when somebody doesn’t respond to it. Sorry.
And last, since I stated right up front that I didn’t know the political persuasion of the person making the shouting statements, it’s hard to accuse me of, well, anything, since I was not claiming the contrary of your statement I was simply asking you for proof of your claim.
If I didn’t know, now I have more evidence of his/her political persuasion (which may well be conservative), although it should be added that religious belief is not a sign of political persuasion, and to claim that liberals generally don’t care about religion in their lives to any high degree is rather insulting to liberals of faith, of whom there are many. As it stands right now though, I still don’t know his/her political belief system and can only surmise based on *stereotypes*. He/she may well be conservative. Or not. I’m not as quick as you are to apply pat labels in order to condemn. ;)
Report Post »abc
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 12:55pmGhost, that’s a lot of words to simply say that you think I have not yet established enough proof that teh person who disrupted the House yesterday was not a liberal. The other stuff, about you not defending Kate on my debate with her, but simultaneously spilling more cyber-ink on that debate than ours (hyprocrisy?), is not worth focusing on.
Here is how I see the world, which I tried to explain clearly before and to justify. (Note that you have not established a similar framework, preferring instead to selectively deploy different standards of proof when it suits your needs–heck, you yell out tu coque at others, but then fall into the trap repeatedly, as I have highlighted and you have failed to defend.) There are two types of ways to obtain knowledge: empirical rationalism and faith-based divination. Only the latter is useful in the modern world, and that method does not seek absolute proof, but probabilistic proof. Now, many here do not subscribe to that view, since they are not well trained. While they take the fruits of that type of knowledge by demanding drugs when they are sick or booking plane flights when they need to travel, they attack the scientists and others when that type of reasoning is deployed in ways that upset them. They are parasites on modernity, who attack science and empiricism but then hypocritically enjoy its benefits. The is relevant to you because I have provided sets of proof that the person making the outburst is overwhelmingly likely to be a conservative. I cited the history of heckling against this President, which was immediately called out by Republicans as the fault of a plant, only to learn shortly thereafter that the person making the claim was being true to their ideology. You say, that the past is no prologue, although you plan for the sun to rise tomorrow using the same logic that you say I cannot use. Further, I have added the evidence that the person responsible for the outburst also said “save us Jesus,” the type of plee that only a religious conservative would make. And religious conservatives are overwhelmingly located in the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. Now, unless I was standing right next to that person, I would not be able to provide the proof you need–a calculation you’ve undoubtedly made for the purposes of your debate, but which reveal you as an extremist and potentially a hypocrite for demanding that which no one demands…even yourself. As an aside, even if I were standing next to that person as an eye witness, technically, this is still not absolute proof, since I cannot be certain that I wasn’t dreaming the whole thing. Don’t believe me? Go read Barclay. But that philosopher, a theologian, is like you working with an ontylogical view that is not modern, does not produce material progress and is not one to which I subscribe. If you continue to insist that you do and are justified in such belief, that’s find. But first, please renounce all use of modern amenities like drugs and airplanes. And second, stop bugging me with your strange way of viewing the world. And third, just come out and call me a bully. I don’t care. The bully who is right is better than the polite one who is wrong.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 1:43pm@ABC
“Ghost, that’s a lot of words to simply say that you think I have not yet established enough proof that teh person who disrupted the House yesterday was not a liberal. ”
Ok, then “you haven’t established any conclusive proof to back up your claim that this person was not a progressive, as you positively and absolutely claimed yesterday”. There we go. :)
“The other stuff, about you not defending Kate on my debate with her, but simultaneously spilling more cyber-ink on that debate than ours (hyprocrisy?), is not worth focusing on.”"
Oh, I am defending her, but from bullying, not from the argument you two were having. She’s a big girl and more than a match for your dissembling rhetoric. I’ve explained this to you already, so I commend you to re-read the reasoning.
“Here is how I see the world, which I tried to explain clearly before and to justify. (Note that you have not established a similar framework, preferring instead to selectively deploy different standards of proof when it suits your needs–heck, you yell out tu coque at others, but then fall into the trap repeatedly, as I have highlighted and you have failed to defend.) ”
Unfortunately, you don’t seem to grasp the logical fallacies I point out and are trying a bit too hard to make yourself appear to know them. Unfortunately, this error you’re making has also been pointed out to you.
“There are two types of ways to obtain knowledge: empirical rationalism and faith-based divination…”
The condescension, I’m afraid, fails. I’m well aware of how knowledge is both obtained and transmitted.
“The is relevant to you because I have provided sets of proof that the person making the outburst is overwhelmingly likely to be a conservative.”
No, you’ve made judgments against stereotypes that even go against your own “group” aka liberals (religion). Sorry guy, that’s not proof, that’s simply conjecture.
“You say, that the past is no prologue, although you plan for the sun to rise tomorrow using the same logic that you say I cannot use.”
I don’t claim, however, with 100% certainty that it will arise. It is only when I make an absolutist claim that I could be called out to provide bona fide evidence to back it up. For all I now, the sun will implode tomorrow, but I plan otherwise. That seems to me to be much more “probabilistic” a view than you take, who clearly labels people one way with scant more than conjecture at his finger tips and who also ignores any probabilities that don’t fit in his world view.
“Further, I have added the evidence that the person responsible for the outburst also said “save us Jesus,” the type of plee that only a religious conservative would make. ”
Which is why your “evidence” fails.
“And religious conservatives are overwhelmingly located in the conservative side of the ideological spectrum. ”
And religious liberals are overwhelmingly located in the liberal side of the ideological spectrum. Heh. Great sentence there, friend. :)
“Now, unless I was standing right next to that person, I would not be able to provide the proof you need–”
Thus the onus is on you to avoid making absolutist proclamations, or qualifying them with “there’s a high probability” BEFORE you’re called on making absolutist proclamations. You didn’t do that, you were called on it, now you’re back peddling. See?
“a calculation you’ve undoubtedly made for the purposes of your debate, but which reveal you as an extremist and potentially a hypocrite for demanding that which no one demands…even yourself. ”
Extremist. Ooh, scary word dude, scary. I only asked you to back up your absolutist claim, which was prefaced with no words indicating “how you view the world and your theory of knowledge”. In fact I was working on something of a rational scientific viewpoint if you think about it. You make a definite claim, I ask for proof.
You’ve taken up an awful lot of word space to back peddle. I find it amusing. Fun conversation. :)
“As an aside, even if I were standing next to that person as an eye witness, technically, this is still not absolute proof, since I cannot be certain that I wasn’t dreaming the whole thing. ”
Solipsism is the refuge of subjectivists I’m afraid, and rather silly. If you by needs have to spin to the realm of “I cannot prove that I’m not dreaming” then you’ve given up the ghost of the claim you made to begin with. You’ve just negated your original claim actually!
“Don’t believe me? Go read Barclay. But that philosopher, a theologian, is like you working with an ontylogical view that is not modern, does not produce material progress and is not one to which I subscribe. ”
It is also amusing when you assign values and “you are this” type statements to me. It’s like watching a guy continuing to dig his hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper. But don’t worry, it’s all in the spirit of good fun.
“If you continue to insist that you do and are justified in such belief, that’s find. But first, please renounce all use of modern amenities like drugs and airplanes. ”
Straw man, knocked down. Argument rejected.
“And second, stop bugging me with your strange way of viewing the world.”
Sure, when you stop bullying people. If it’s a heated debate where ad hominem if flying, so much the merrier. But to open your argument with ad hominem, well, that‘s bullying and I’ll be there to “bug you”. And the neat thing is, you cannot stop me. ;)
“And third, just come out and call me a bully. I don’t care. ”
I already did.
“The bully who is right is better than the polite one who is wrong.”
Not really, no. Bullies defeat their own arguments through the acts they perpetrate to get their point across. Were you never on a school lot at recess?
Oh well, it‘s been fun and you’re spinning your wheels now in full back peddle mode and ad hominem mode. My work here is done. Thanks mate! :)
Report Post »FIREDUDE
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 3:41pmABC????????????????????????????
You got to give it to a MORON that just keeps trying and trying to justify what he is trying to say WITHOUT GIVING ANY FACTS????? NOT COMMENTS FROM A LIBETARD……..
MY STOMACH IS STILL HURTING…………
You know you are lying when you have to write a book to try and get your point across…
Wow. Okay. I’ll let yours be longer. If only to avoid trying the patience of this site and its bloggers.
You are not trying are patience you are just proving how STUPID you liberals are….
Please keep writing though “LAUGHING DOES THE HEART GOOD”
I am sorry if that offended you???? ( i know you dont have a heart)
PLEASE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO COMPETE WITH JUST SHOW US FACTS
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:42pmChrissy Matthews .. is that you?
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:50pmAt least the Kissing Bandit didn’t show up, although Kanye West did try to get in but couldn’t get through the pat down.
Cobra Blue
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:52pmDisagree with Obama on ANYTHING = Birther, Republican, conservative, Christian, Tea Partier, Tea ******…whatever. .Either go along or your are labeled as Public Enemy #1. Sal Alinsky would be proud of his student…..the Sissy in Chief.
Report Post »Barry Soetoro
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:00pmIt sure wasn’t Speaker John Boehner, he wasn’t even there! See, I’m home free, they don’t care.
“In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Report Post »By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
BMartin1776
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:07pmNo Tingles is probably home working with Shultzy on new material to attack ppl personally. Along with new delusions like Nanzi had the other day about passing healthcare even if everyone was happy with what they had.
As for the heckler on BHO’s eligibility, he was born in US. What the loons should focus on is what his LEGAL name is! If it was in fact changed, to Barry Soetoro, when his mother remarried, and they lived in Indonesia, and not changed back to BHO when she sent him back to live with his grandparents in Hawaii well then guess what!
He is committing identity fraud every single time he has signed his name as BHO! This makes more logical sense as to the big mystery on his records being sealed etc etc.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:12pmIt was probably someone from World Nut Daily.
DimmuBorgir
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:15pm@BARRY
what are you talking about, he was there the whole time
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:35pmSo where is the actual birth certificate???? I know where mine is and I’m a nobody.
Report Post »Barry Soetoro
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:01pm@DimmuBorgir
John Boehner wasn’t present as the Speaker, despite the magnitude and weight of the Constitution, he chose to delegate his duty to preside as Speaker of the House, during the historic reading to Rep. Mike Simpson (R-OD). But you’re right, he may have been in the vicinity, somewhere… apparently doing something more important.
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Report Post »By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:07pmJ Hedgar Hoover would had resolved this issue way before any elections.
Report Post »donh2
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:10pmMy thoughts exactly. This was surely a democrat plant. They are desparate to rivive this issue to play the race card. This issue has always been a magic trick to take your eyes off the real truth. Obama’s family background is hidden under cover because his real father was a well known communist leader Franklin Marshall Davis. We should be demanding paternity DNA testing not birth certificates.
shorthanded12
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:12pmThis lady shouting is no worse than that DemoRAT from (ILL) J J Jr. (Jesse Jackson Jr.) (D) standing up before the reading and trying to spin it into a race issue. These Demorats can mess up a junk yard Oh I forgot they did it was called CASH for CLUNKERS.
Report Post »VietnamVet1969-70-USMC
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:21pm“Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra”…..” when the walls fell.”
Sorry…couldn’t resist, because it’s “Futile”. ;)
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:28pm@VietnamVet1969-70-USMC
Report Post »Semper Fi
fgarvin
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:33pmTo Leo the Lawyer:
Interesting, as a lawyer you think quotes trump a legal document to the degree of the US Consititution. Then my quote, “You are an FTARD” should trump any binding consideration obtained from your law degree!
Report Post »101
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:10pm.
Report Post »All the unconstitutional acts congress has indulged in over the past two +years and the best this person can come up with is “what about Obama”… this douche bag biotch needs to find a hobby, like putting puzzle pieces together at a state mental institution!
Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:26pm@101 – Broker101, I see you are back with us under an assumed name, nice to have you back *******! Now we can commence the spanking of your drivel again….
Report Post »Miguelito
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:27pmA plant no doubt!!!
Report Post »101
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:41pm@Sgt.Crust
You’re barking up the wrong tree…I’m not Broker101
I’m a hard core republican, so if you would like to try and spank me bring it on!
Report Post »ron the veteran
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:42pmit dont matter if obama was born in hawaii or on the white house steps hees still not eligible to hold the office of the persident of this nation. in order for obama to be eligible he must have two american parents making him a natural born citizen. obamas father was not american but a british subject. and this makes obama ineligible by not meeting the natural born citizen clause of our constitution.
Report Post »Sgt.Crust
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 3:48pm@101, ok, I had to find out for myself my friend (I really don’t like that piece of work Broker101), peace be with you then, we’re on the same side!
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:11pmI appreciate that article about President Obama’s ineligibility but I always was under the impression that being born physically in America was not part of being natural born but the fact that both parents were American citizens. Diplomats in those days traveled for years with family and many gave birth while serving overseas. Being American citizens, their children would naturally be born American citizens not the citizens of the land they’re currently living in.
Wasn’t McCain born in Panama? Both his parents were American citizens though which made him eligible to be president.
Most countries doesn’t grant automatic citizenship just because you were born on their soil. You are eligible to apply for dual citizenship but it’s not automatic as far as I understand.
Buck_Ofama
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 4:46pmlol!
Report Post »bobodu
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:39pm“You lie!”
Report Post »“F@#$ the President”
Now this…..
Didn’t your parents teach you folks any common courtesy? Shame on you.
*************************
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 6:25pm“the heckler was a woman who was arrested”
Oh? And EXACTLY what CRIME was committed? Is it ILLEGAL to say “the emperor has no clothes”?
PAST TIME to burn all the law books with marxist / socialist tyranny, micro-managing us out of our GOD-GIVEN Liberties!
HEDLEY LAMARR: “And what’s your crime?”
Report Post »sheriff BART [disguised as KKK]: “Stampeding cattle.”
HEDLEY LAMARR: “That’s not much of a crime.”
sheriff BART: “Through the Vatican?”
HEDLEY LAMARR: “Kinky! Sign here.”
-Blazing Saddles
free2bme1961
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 4:36amHasn’t anyone else found it disturbing that she was arrested for this? Just to escort her out of the building would have been sufficient enough!…or told she was being rude, and perhaps warned not to interupt again.
Report Post »I saw no crime…just freedom of speech expressed! If she had yelled out a compliment, would she have been arrested? We have all just witnessed, the beginning of the future, which leads to the end!!
tower7femacamp
Posted on January 7, 2011 at 6:06pmFREE2BEme, is right we are living in a prison planet.
A long, long time ago…
I can still remember
How freedom used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people take a stance
And, maybe, they’d fight for a while.
But february made me shiver
With every post I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doomsday doorstep;
I couldn’t make one more post
I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about the Patriot act,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the Constitution died.
So bye-bye miss American Chemtraled Sky
Searched my laptop to the Chemtrail site
But the site was shutdown
And them good old boys were drinkin’ Fluoride and rye
Singin’, “this’ll be the day that I die.
“this’ll be the day that I die.”
Did you write the patriot act
And do you have faith in God the cat
If the Bible tells you so?
Do you believe in rock ’n roll,
Can Alex Jones save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to read real slow?
Well, I know that you’re in love with Glenn
`cause I saw you trashing 911 truth
You both closed off your minds so fast
Man, I knew those videos could not last
Now for ten years after 911 we’ve been on our own
And nano-thermite grows fat on a rollin’ stone,
But that’s not how it used to be.
When the GW sang for the king and queen,
In a coat he borrowed from james dean
And a voice that came from you and me,
The day the Constitution died
Report Post »SPOT_OF_TEA
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 2:29amI recently read a book written by Peter Schiff and now I am more certain than ever that Obama is a Keynesian.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on January 8, 2011 at 6:28amLiberal plant? (hahahah) No, a birther. period
Report Post »