Obama a Foreign National After All???

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play

LOL, really? Who put it in play?

Here’s a hint:

pittbulll wrote:
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.

You made two unsubstantiated claims here and by doing so successfully started another redundant discussion about race.

Hillary , was probably the first, then John McCain second , now it is probably a tool of the Right wing of the Republican party

“Oh no! It’s not my fault! Other people did it first, I can’t be held responsible for doing it this time, it’s THEIR fault!”

Bullshit. You know damn well what we are both referring to, you are just trying to deliberately misunderstand.[/quote]

What am I trying to misunderstand?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play

LOL, really? Who put it in play?

Here’s a hint:

pittbulll wrote:
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.

You made two unsubstantiated claims here and by doing so successfully started another redundant discussion about race.

RLMFAO

Talk about unsubstantiated claims , that what this whole thread is about , then you say I am making unsubstantiated claims ,that is funny[/quote]

Fact: Obama has failed to release his original long-form birth certificate.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Occidental college.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Columbia.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Harvard Law.
Fact: Obama has sealed all medical records surrounding his birth.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records of him and his family in Kenya.
Fact: Obama traveled to Pakistan in the early 80’s with his muslim friends.
Fact: Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen.
Fact: Obama’s grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

Do I need to go on? There are plenty more. Would you like me to cite each of these? What unsubstatiated claims, in this thread, have I or anyone else questioning Obama made?

[quote]tedro wrote:

Do I need to go on? [/quote]

Oh please do.

[i]“At some level, they’re not that bad to have around because it reminds people that under the mainstream conservative press there’s this bubbling up of really irrational hatred for the guy,” said former Clinton White House press secretary Jake Siewert.

The conservative talk show host Michael Medved recently referred to the movement’s leaders as “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters” who are “the worst enemy of the conservative movement.”

“It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company,” he mourned.

Read more: Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

A quick reality check, before we dive in: The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory â?? that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t â??as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

[quote]tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play

LOL, really? Who put it in play?

Here’s a hint:

pittbulll wrote:
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.

You made two unsubstantiated claims here and by doing so successfully started another redundant discussion about race.

RLMFAO

Talk about unsubstantiated claims , that what this whole thread is about , then you say I am making unsubstantiated claims ,that is funny

Fact: Obama has failed to release his original long-form birth certificate.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Occidental college.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Columbia.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Harvard Law.
Fact: Obama has sealed all medical records surrounding his birth.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records of him and his family in Kenya.
Fact: Obama traveled to Pakistan in the early 80’s with his muslim friends.
Fact: Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen.
Fact: Obama’s grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

Do I need to go on? There are plenty more. Would you like me to cite each of these? What unsubstatiated claims, in this thread, have I or anyone else questioning Obama made?[/quote]

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
tedro wrote:

Do I need to go on?

Oh please do.

[i]“At some level, they’re not that bad to have around because it reminds people that under the mainstream conservative press there’s this bubbling up of really irrational hatred for the guy,” said former Clinton White House press secretary Jake Siewert.

The conservative talk show host Michael Medved recently referred to the movement’s leaders as “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters” who are “the worst enemy of the conservative movement.”

“It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company,” he mourned.

Read more: Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

[/quote]

This guy’s got it right.

I’ve said it before- aside from one or two posters, this forum is made up of the super-psychotic fringe right. Unfortunately, it’s not even worth arguing with many of them because they are literally living in a world that is seperate and distinct from the rest of us.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play

LOL, really? Who put it in play?

Here’s a hint:

pittbulll wrote:
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.

You made two unsubstantiated claims here and by doing so successfully started another redundant discussion about race.

RLMFAO

Talk about unsubstantiated claims , that what this whole thread is about , then you say I am making unsubstantiated claims ,that is funny

Fact: Obama has failed to release his original long-form birth certificate.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Occidental college.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Columbia.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Harvard Law.
Fact: Obama has sealed all medical records surrounding his birth.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records of him and his family in Kenya.
Fact: Obama traveled to Pakistan in the early 80’s with his muslim friends.
Fact: Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen.
Fact: Obama’s grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

Do I need to go on? There are plenty more. Would you like me to cite each of these? What unsubstatiated claims, in this thread, have I or anyone else questioning Obama made?

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

[/quote]

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

[quote]tedro wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m still waiting for how Kerry was a traitor. Why don’t you throw that one out there first huh tough guy?

Since Bill must have missed this one, I’ll bite for you.

http://www.federationofstates.com/articals/sjkpt.htm

Count One: TREASON. - While still in the United States Naval Reserve, Lt. John F. Kerry did, in Paris, France, without authorization from the President or the State Department, undergo private negotiations with the enemy, a foreign government, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong thus giving, aid and comfort to the enemy in 1970 while active combat operations were in progress in violation of 18 USC 2381 - Treason and of the USCJ Section 904. Art. 104. Aiding the Enemy.

And the 14th Ammendment, clause 3:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [Emphasis mine]

Finally, given that he made an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, I present article 3, section 3 of the Constitution, which defines treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[Emphasis mine]

To summarize, in meeting and negotiating with representatives of the North Vietnam government without authorization, Kerry aided and comforted the enemy, which the U.S. constitution defines as treason. Committing treason is in direct contrast to the Oath he took upon serving the country in the military, and the constitution bars any person from serving as Senator who has previously broken an oath to uphold it.[/quote]

Thanks – I’d decided there was no value to FI’s posts and so don’t read them. But that was a point worth expanding on, since the media gave so little attention to this matter.

Now it’s arguable – as in the sense that it can be argued – that maybe that ought not to count. But also surely it’s arguable that it should.

My point is that the way our government works, people such as Kerry need have no fear of being held to account for such things. They’re “in” and the rest of the Senators, and the vast majority of the media, really and truly don’t care if by the intent of the Founding Fathers as written in the Constitution Kerry is ineligible. This is shown by the fact that there has never even been a hearing on it.

I expect that similarly there really and truly is no care among the vast majority of Congressmen, Senators, Supreme Court justices, other Federal judges, and the media as to whether Obama held or even exercised dual citizenship as an adult or even recently, or whether he was actually born in the US or not, etc. He is “in” in every sense of the word and need not fear such things, as personal opinion. He also need not fear the media or any judge giving him real grief over his having sealed all these records, thus making proof – of matters that the public should not be denied ordinary means to know – impossible.

Thus I don’t think that for practical purposes this is a big issue. He has a get-out-of-jail-free card on things such as this.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tedro wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I did not pull that card, I just pointed out that it is in play

LOL, really? Who put it in play?

Here’s a hint:

pittbulll wrote:
All this thread is the Republicans continuing to flap their gums because the Negro got elected.

You made two unsubstantiated claims here and by doing so successfully started another redundant discussion about race.

RLMFAO

Talk about unsubstantiated claims , that what this whole thread is about , then you say I am making unsubstantiated claims ,that is funny

Fact: Obama has failed to release his original long-form birth certificate.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Occidental college.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Columbia.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records at Harvard Law.
Fact: Obama has sealed all medical records surrounding his birth.
Fact: Obama has sealed all records of him and his family in Kenya.
Fact: Obama traveled to Pakistan in the early 80’s with his muslim friends.
Fact: Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen.
Fact: Obama’s grandmother claims he was born in Kenya.

Do I need to go on? There are plenty more. Would you like me to cite each of these? What unsubstatiated claims, in this thread, have I or anyone else questioning Obama made?

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

[/quote]

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I donâ??t buy your (he is guilty because he wonâ??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I don�?�¢??t buy your (he is guilty because he won�?�¢??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood[/quote]

Not because you have a different opinion but because all of your replies, whether to me or anyone, show that reasoning had no effect at all.

I’m not a fan of futility.

So if you want to think that arguments such as what you wrote above make sense, that’s your business. I would be wasting my time trying to show you otherwise because it won’t happen. That is my personal opinion, which is all I have to go on. It could be the case that you’ll show me wrong and at some future point I’ll think to myself, “Pittbulll does sometimes give replies that in some way follow or apply.” Could be. I overstated in saying at no future time. I should have said I wasn’t expecting it.

The reply really was because I just found your statement a completely ridiculous non-sequitur (“does not follow”) and an absolute ignoring of relevant points already made. So they might as well not have been made, so far as you are concerned, it seems to me.

“Your wife is a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with another guy” is supposed to be an analogy illustrative of sealing records that ordinarily would not be sealed, and never have been before by a Presidential candidate, let alone President?

I don’t even get where that is SUPPOSED to be logical on any planet.

If you want a wife analogy, how about, what if the wife is highly secretive and goes to great lengths to hide a considerable number of things that ordinarily would be available? For example she’s gone and gotten court orders or by other legal means has prevented you from finding out if she’s ever been married before, etc. Had pretty much everything sealed prior to 2004. Is there reason to suspect she’s doing it because there is something she doesn’t want you to know?

She didn’t go and do it either until trying to get you to marry her, then in a rush went and did all this. Is an argument along your lines that, no, she did all this because of trolls, there is no reason to suspect she is hiding anything from YOU, even remotely a reasonable one? No, it would not be. It would be whacked.

You’re unable to get the basic point, or unwilling. So I’m not going to continue trying. Hopefully that makes sense. There are too many posts to answer every one, a person has to be selective, and my choices are to engage in back-and-forths only if there seems a reasonable chance of productivity. When replies consistently are as if nothing was said and consistently are of the order such as the above, I see the chance as zero. That is just personal opinion, surely each person is entitled to his own personal opinion as to what is productive for him to try.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I don�?�¢??t buy your (he is guilty because he won�?�¢??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood

Not because you have a different opinion but because all of your replies, whether to me or anyone, show that reasoning had no effect at all.

I’m not a fan of futility.

So if you want to think that arguments such as what you wrote above make sense, that’s your business. I would be wasting my time trying to show you otherwise because it won’t happen. That is my personal opinion, which is all I have to go on. It could be the case that you’ll show me wrong and at some future point I’ll think to myself, “Pittbulll does sometimes give replies that in some way follow or apply.” Could be. I overstated in saying at no future time. I should have said I wasn’t expecting it.

The reply really was because I just found your statement a completely ridiculous non-sequitur (“does not follow”) and an absolute ignoring of relevant points already made. So they might as well not have been made, so far as you are concerned, it seems to me.

“Your wife is a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with another guy” is supposed to be an analogy illustrative of sealing records that ordinarily would not be sealed, and never have been before by a Presidential candidate, let alone President?

I don’t even get where that is SUPPOSED to be logical on any planet.

If you want a wife analogy, how about, what if the wife is highly secretive and goes to great lengths to hide a considerable number of things that ordinarily would be available? Is there reason to suspect she’s doing it because there is something she doesn’t want you to know?

You’re unable to get the basic point, or unwilling. So I’m not going to continue trying. Hopefully that makes sense. There are too many posts to answer every one, a person has to be selective, and my choices are to engage in back-and-forths only if there seems a reasonable chance of productivity. When replies consistently are as if nothing was said and consistently are of the order such as the above, I see the chance as zero. That is just personal opinion, surely each person is entitled to his own personal opinion as to what is productive for him to try.[/quote]

The way I see it is you are trying to tell me the conclusions I should make to a set of circumstances. And If I come up with a different conclusion than I am being unreasonable

I get your point, I just disagree with it

OMG WTF!!! Fucker just said “Thank you” to the Saudi king in Arabic, that proves he’s a foreign-born Muslim after all!!!

I think sealing those records was the best thing he could do. It leaves all the nut jobs spinning themselves into a lather over a non-issue, especially since none of them have any legal standing to demand access to the documents in the first place.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A quick reality check, before we dive in: The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence.
[/quote]
His grandmother claims to have been present at the birth in Kenya. He traveled to Pakistan at a time that the country would have been closed to American citizens. Evidence is not the same as proof, which neither of us have. Plenty of evidence would be available to establish Obama’s true birthplace if he would release his records just like every other president.

Nobody here (that I’m aware of) has attempted to make this argument.

Have they? Show me. All I have seen is this little tidbit:

“I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It was explained to you in another post that a foreign-born child can, under Hawaiian statue, receive an authentic certification of live birth, which is all that we have seen. This would have been necessary to ensure BO would be an American citizen, but would not make him natural born. Notice that the DOH does not give the details of what is in the BC, and doesn’t actually testify to have seen the document, she has merely seen that it legally exists.

The birth announcements aren’t proof of anything, and would barely even qualify as evidence (if they are legit, which I don’t doubt but many do.) My birth was announced in a Kansas newspaper - I was born ~1000 miles away. Placing a birth announcement is no more difficult that placing a classified and grandparents routinely place announcements in their local papers for grandchildren that may or may not have been born locally. Also, it has been reported and not refuted that the birth announcements at the time may have come directly from the Department of Health, which simply means if Ann Dunham registered Obama’s birth it would appear. By now you know full well that this birth could have been registered in the state of Hawaii and occured elsewhere, given Hawaiian statute at the time.

This issue could so easily go away if Obama lacked his narcissistic complex and complied just like every other president. The most appalling thing about the entire issue is that so many people like yourself are content with Obama’s words and nothing else.

Let me ask you this, say you wanted to buy a plot of land from a private owner. After agreeing to terms, you say “hey by the way, can I see the deed to the property.” And the owner replies “Oh, I have it, don’t worry about.” You are probably content, after all what is the likelihood that somebody is going to sell land that isn’t theirs? You get a little closer to closing and ask to see the deed again. Again, the owner says he has it and you don’t need to worry. Finally, you are ready to close on the property so you ask one more time, “Can I see the deed?” And again, the owner says don’t worry he’ll sign it over to you. Aren’t you getting a little suspicious at this point. You have no evidence to believe he isn’t the legal owner, so you decide to contact the county registrar. Much to your amazement, you find that the records to the property are sealed. The owner has done nothing to show that he is not the owner of record, but don’t you think a reasonable person would start to doubt his claims. It would take just one simple task to prove ownership.

It is this very evasiveness that makes Obama extremely suspicious. If it were anybody else then most reasonable people would have little doubt that he is hiding something that would be detrimental to his career and his image. What he is hiding we don’t exactly know, but given all the information (or lack thereof) available, a foreign birth seems the most likely answer.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I don�??�??�??�?�¢??t buy your (he is guilty because he won�??�??�??�?�¢??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood

Not because you have a different opinion but because all of your replies, whether to me or anyone, show that reasoning had no effect at all.

I’m not a fan of futility.

So if you want to think that arguments such as what you wrote above make sense, that’s your business. I would be wasting my time trying to show you otherwise because it won’t happen. That is my personal opinion, which is all I have to go on. It could be the case that you’ll show me wrong and at some future point I’ll think to myself, “Pittbulll does sometimes give replies that in some way follow or apply.” Could be. I overstated in saying at no future time. I should have said I wasn’t expecting it.

The reply really was because I just found your statement a completely ridiculous non-sequitur (“does not follow”) and an absolute ignoring of relevant points already made. So they might as well not have been made, so far as you are concerned, it seems to me.

“Your wife is a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with another guy” is supposed to be an analogy illustrative of sealing records that ordinarily would not be sealed, and never have been before by a Presidential candidate, let alone President?

I don’t even get where that is SUPPOSED to be logical on any planet.

If you want a wife analogy, how about, what if the wife is highly secretive and goes to great lengths to hide a considerable number of things that ordinarily would be available? Is there reason to suspect she’s doing it because there is something she doesn’t want you to know?

You’re unable to get the basic point, or unwilling. So I’m not going to continue trying. Hopefully that makes sense. There are too many posts to answer every one, a person has to be selective, and my choices are to engage in back-and-forths only if there seems a reasonable chance of productivity. When replies consistently are as if nothing was said and consistently are of the order such as the above, I see the chance as zero. That is just personal opinion, surely each person is entitled to his own personal opinion as to what is productive for him to try.

The way I see it is you are trying to tell me the conclusions I should make to a set of circumstances. And If I come up with a different conclusion than I am being unreasonable
[/quote]

No, it’s that I find your replies completely whacky. Such as the lesbian one. A person could disagree with an argument that I don’t agree with but given its premises is logical, such as expressing an opinion that it doesn’t matter if a Presidential candidate holds dual citizenship, an opinion that that would not contradict the Constitution, and an opinion that the American people don’t have a right to know such things about their candidates, and given all that, then it is logical to find no fault with Obama sealing his records.

Your replies aren’t of that sort. Instead they’re this stuff about lesbians and trolls and how if he didn’t seal the records this would be dangerous (or whatever it was exactly) and so forth.

Anyway, enough of that. If you want to reply again to the above feel free to have the last word.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I don�??�?�¢??t buy your (he is guilty because he won�??�?�¢??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood

Not because you have a different opinion but because all of your replies, whether to me or anyone, show that reasoning had no effect at all.

I’m not a fan of futility.

So if you want to think that arguments such as what you wrote above make sense, that’s your business. I would be wasting my time trying to show you otherwise because it won’t happen. That is my personal opinion, which is all I have to go on. It could be the case that you’ll show me wrong and at some future point I’ll think to myself, “Pittbulll does sometimes give replies that in some way follow or apply.” Could be. I overstated in saying at no future time. I should have said I wasn’t expecting it.

The reply really was because I just found your statement a completely ridiculous non-sequitur (“does not follow”) and an absolute ignoring of relevant points already made. So they might as well not have been made, so far as you are concerned, it seems to me.

“Your wife is a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with another guy” is supposed to be an analogy illustrative of sealing records that ordinarily would not be sealed, and never have been before by a Presidential candidate, let alone President?

I don’t even get where that is SUPPOSED to be logical on any planet.

If you want a wife analogy, how about, what if the wife is highly secretive and goes to great lengths to hide a considerable number of things that ordinarily would be available? For example she’s gone and gotten court orders or by other legal means has prevented you from finding out if she’s ever been married before, etc. Had pretty much everything sealed prior to 2004. Is there reason to suspect she’s doing it because there is something she doesn’t want you to know?

She didn’t go and do it either until trying to get you to marry her, then in a rush went and did all this. Is an argument along your lines that, no, she did all this because of trolls, there is no reason to suspect she is hiding anything from YOU, even remotely a reasonable one? No, it would not be. It would be whacked.

quote]

Going on your analogy, I would not marry the women;

My analogy covers the point that just because some one reads a situation one way does not make it so, especially when you have warring factions like Republicans V Democrats. You can not take what the Republicans say as being objective, because they do not want to help the country along they want to create problems. And why they want to create problems is so they can blame them on the Democrats

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

You are correct he had all his personal records sealed so the trolls can not harm him, it sounds like an intelligent thing he has done, but you equating that his sealed records make him guilty, is a classic definition of an unsubstantiated claim. It would be like some making a claim that you wife was a lesbian because she would not sleep with another guy.

There is no reasoning with you, clearly, so I will not try to do so now or at any future time.

What, you are refusing to talk to me because I don�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t buy your (he is guilty because he won�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t give me what I want) shit. That is pretty weak if so, please tell me I misunderstood

Not because you have a different opinion but because all of your replies, whether to me or anyone, show that reasoning had no effect at all.

I’m not a fan of futility.

So if you want to think that arguments such as what you wrote above make sense, that’s your business. I would be wasting my time trying to show you otherwise because it won’t happen. That is my personal opinion, which is all I have to go on. It could be the case that you’ll show me wrong and at some future point I’ll think to myself, “Pittbulll does sometimes give replies that in some way follow or apply.” Could be. I overstated in saying at no future time. I should have said I wasn’t expecting it.

The reply really was because I just found your statement a completely ridiculous non-sequitur (“does not follow”) and an absolute ignoring of relevant points already made. So they might as well not have been made, so far as you are concerned, it seems to me.

“Your wife is a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with another guy” is supposed to be an analogy illustrative of sealing records that ordinarily would not be sealed, and never have been before by a Presidential candidate, let alone President?

I don’t even get where that is SUPPOSED to be logical on any planet.

If you want a wife analogy, how about, what if the wife is highly secretive and goes to great lengths to hide a considerable number of things that ordinarily would be available? Is there reason to suspect she’s doing it because there is something she doesn’t want you to know?

You’re unable to get the basic point, or unwilling. So I’m not going to continue trying. Hopefully that makes sense. There are too many posts to answer every one, a person has to be selective, and my choices are to engage in back-and-forths only if there seems a reasonable chance of productivity. When replies consistently are as if nothing was said and consistently are of the order such as the above, I see the chance as zero. That is just personal opinion, surely each person is entitled to his own personal opinion as to what is productive for him to try.

The way I see it is you are trying to tell me the conclusions I should make to a set of circumstances. And If I come up with a different conclusion than I am being unreasonable

No, it’s that I find your replies completely whacky. Such as the lesbian one. A person could disagree with an argument that I don’t agree with but given its premises is logical, such as expressing an opinion that it doesn’t matter if a Presidential candidate holds dual citizenship, an opinion that that would not contradict the Constitution, and an opinion that the American people don’t have a right to know such things about their candidates, and given all that, then it is logical to find no fault with Obama sealing his records.

Your replies aren’t of that sort. Instead they’re this stuff about lesbians and trolls and how if he didn’t seal the records this would be dangerous (or whatever it was exactly) and so forth.

Anyway, enough of that. If you want to reply again to the above feel free to have the last word.[/quote]

I could make any accusation I want against any body I want and you think they should have to satisfy my claim. I think that is unreasonable. Especially if I was motivated to do them harm.
If this is the last word , it is your prerogative