Obama: "Born in Kenya"

jason · 05-23-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jane333

I'm sorry that you consider ...

Like Godwin's law, I consider the first ad hominem attack to be a white flag signaling the loss of an argument.

jane333 · 05-23-2012, 04:39 PM

Ah, Jason...throwing around that Latin again, eh, to try to make a point when you're not really certain what your point is? And are you sure you're using the dead language correctly?

If it will help, I'll have another go at it.

"I can't consider documents posted online as evidence of anything."

flourbug · 05-23-2012, 04:42 PM

Jane333, you edited your post after I responded. Obviously, you (and the ignorant folks at obamaconspiracies) are not aware of "Justiagate". http://www.examiner.com/article/justiagate

What happened was, the main source of legal information had been scrubbed (ie, more than 25 rulings had parts edited out) of SCOTUS decisions on natural born citizen. Once that was discovered, and the pertinent information found though other sources, the case wasq made.

jane333 · 05-23-2012, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flourbug

Jane333, you edited your post after I responded. Obviously, you (and the ignorant folks at obamaconspiracies) are not aware of "Justiagate". http://www.examiner.com/article/justiagate

....

If we're throwing around names, and I'd rather not as that's how most threads go on too many forums, I'd have a few for the lovingly-referenced and professional staff at WND.com, myself.

I'll have a look at your link in a bit.

Does the topic of Justiagate appear on a website that does not have criticisms of plagiarism and lack of fact-checking attached? I'm not being sarcastic. Also, is Justia.com the ONLY source that archives court decisions for online use? I've never heard of it. If not, were they all 'scrubbed' as your article claims? Or was this a triviality?

I'm thinking that this decision must exist in the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of volumes on U.S. court cases from that period in every legal library in the nation and abroad.

flourbug · 05-23-2012, 05:08 PM

Google it... But I doubt the mainstream media will report on anything that supports a legal argument that Obama, McCain, and Rubio are not eligible.

sandyd · 05-23-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason

Like Godwin's law, I consider the first ad hominem attack to be a white flag signaling the loss of an argument.

Believe it or not jason, there is no winning or losing a DISCUSSION.

If this is an argument in your mind, IMHO, you already personally lost your way along the journey.

hth

jason · 05-23-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyd

Believe it or not jason, there is no winning or losing a DISCUSSION.

I disagree. This is a debate on a topic. You might make your arguments better than someone else, or maybe not. It doesn't really matter. Regardless, once it degrades into something other than the discussion at hand, the debate is over and whoever derailed it is no longer in the running. They are signaling that they have nothing left to offer.

sandyd · 05-23-2012, 10:24 PM

So you see everything as win or lose?

No place for anything gray...

Not my kinda thing. I have learned I thought I was right and I was wrong. I have learned I thought I was wrong and was. I've even found I was partly right and partly not and then later new info comes to light and I'm more right or more wrong based on the new info.

I think you are trying to win with jane and she is not in the fight...she is saying not only what she thinks--some that has nothing to do with the latest 'fact of the day' but her own way of seeing the world and how it works.
Some she gives sources for what she has read but even then she may or may not 100% agree with those. It may be 60-40.

I know I'm that way....although mostly I ignore most sources if I can find or someone finds sources that say both sides of an issue. Cuz then I know I'm reading other peoples opinions and how they see the issue...not some mystical truth.

In the end I see my opinion and others see theirs. You note legally even the Supremes give opinions? They may feel theirs is 'truth' but legally they know better.

Maybe you just have your opinion formed and find quick ways to determine you are right if the other person discusses things in ways you deem wrong.
At that point I guess you are out of the discussion cuz you already have your personal truth from it?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by flourbug

Google it... But I doubt the mainstream media will report on anything that supports a legal argument that Obama, McCain, and Rubio are not eligible.

Why would they? Where does their money come from?

jason · 05-23-2012, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyd

So you see everything as win or lose?

No place for anything gray...

Not my kinda thing. I have learned I thought I was right and I was wrong

You're attributing things to me that I never said.

This is a place for discussion. When it ceases to be a discussion, it no longer has purpose. Try to stay on topic, state your viewpoint in a civil manner.

You're too focused on me saying "lose", it's not about points or karma. You lose when you cannot make a case for your viewpoint, hence ad hominem attacks. Make sense now?

Case in point, look again at what jane333 said in response to my observation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jane333

Ah, Jason...throwing around that Latin again, eh, to try to make a point when you're not really certain what your point is? And are you sure you're using the dead language correctly

She's not discussing anything here. It's just insults.

sandyd · 05-23-2012, 10:48 PM

She is not certain what your point is, that is for sure.

And are you sure you used the language correctly? She doesn't seem to be.

I don't know she meant those as insults or questions. You see insults.

jane? how did you mean them?

here is my thoughts:
http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread...373#post355373

jason · 05-23-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyd

She is not certain what your point is, that is for sure.

And are you sure you used the language correctly? She doesn't seem to be.

I don't know she meant those as insults or questions. You see insults

You needn't play coy. It's clear you understand what I'm saying, so it's clear you know what she's saying. I don't bait that easily

sandyd · 05-23-2012, 11:06 PM

Is playing coy something done behind a fan with fluttering of eyelashes? Or is it a debate form?

I'm sure you could be taking it right. I'm also sure you could be wrong.

I'm telling you how I see it could be taken other than your way. And if it was said to me, I would not respond as you did.

gsgs · 05-24-2012, 02:10 AM

Ross, I was open minded from the beginning, wasn't I ? Did you check the facts ?
The evidence is growing pro Obama, not against.See the polls.
Change/clarify the constitution. Or make an amendment. Or amend an existing one.
However it goes in USA. This should be decided by the politicians, not the lawyers
trying to "interpret" the existing (ancient) regulations.
Flourbug, make a DNA test. It will be done. Soon most of us will have their DNA for cheap.
Presidents anyway. How could Obama successfully hide his DNA ? He can't. And he knows that.

jason · 05-24-2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyd

I'm telling you how I see it could be taken other than your way. And if it was said to me, I would not respond as you did.

I didn't respond. I only used it as an example in my reply to you.

So that we're keeping track, one general comment, followed by four replies directly to you. Not including the other thread you created on this topic.

It's not lost on me that you made multiple attributions to me, such as "Must be black or white", "you're trying to win", "you've lost your way", etc based on my 21 word original comment which mentions nothing of the sort. Meanwhile the reverse is applied to Jane, and all her comments are easily explained away with various logic, that if had been applied to my comment, wouldn't have required these numerous replies.

I do have to give it to you that you are discussing and not attacking

If I was running this place, I'd split this derailment out and move it elsewhere.

flourbug · 05-24-2012, 07:42 AM

Quote:

If I was running this place, I'd split this derailment out and move it elsewhere.

Honey you have the plug in your hand. How much more power could you possibly get?

Feel free to move the pertinent posts to the Dungeon.

Potemkin · 05-24-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsgs

Ross, I was open minded from the beginning, wasn't I ? Did you check the facts ?
The evidence is growing pro Obama, not against.See the polls.

As a man of science you know those two are mutually exclusive.

sandyd · 05-24-2012, 03:16 PM

jason,

just so you hear it from me. I started the other thread to try to move posts about it OFF this thread.

I failed.

jane333 · 05-24-2012, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flourbug

Google it... But I doubt the mainstream media will report on anything that supports a legal argument that Obama, McCain, and Rubio are not eligible.

I did find quite a bit about those three.

The fact remains, however, that the referenced court decision exists literally everywhere. I don't find that the Justia.com website changes are proof of collusion with the Obama administration. On the contrary. Maybe this was a purposeful act by the owner/administrator of the website, or a search/replace error as he described. And nothing more. Who knows? Taking the website with a grain of salt may be the best recourse.

I'd be inclined to say that if a website owner makes changes to info posted therein, it is his/her prerogative. And buyer beware.

jane333 · 05-24-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandyd

She is not certain what your point is, that is for sure.

And are you sure you used the language correctly? She doesn't seem to be.

I don't know she meant those as insults or questions. You see insults.

jane? how did you mean them?

here is my thoughts:
http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread...373#post355373

sandy,

I had to look up ad hominem at Merriam Webster.

I've seen that term thrown about on forums multiple times. I hate to say it, but it doesn't seem to apply to my comments to flourbug...in any of its myriad forms.

But I may be wrong. LOL Latin is not my first language.

Potemkin · 05-25-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jane333

sandy,

I had to look up ad hominem at Merriam Webster.

I've seen that term thrown about on forums multiple times. I hate to say it, but it doesn't seem to apply to my comments to flourbug...in any of its myriad forms.

But I may be wrong. LOL Latin is not my first language.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...arguments.html