Main Menu

Irrational optimism

One thing puzzles me about the birthers–their optimism. Conspiracy theorists in general are not at all optimistic. They see themselves as the voice in the wilderness crying, but largely unheeded. They believe they know the truth, but they also believe that the powers they confront, the level of control that the conspirators exert, are so great that it is simply not possible for them to actually win by persuading most people to agree with them. They feel an obligation to try expose the truth, but they have little hope of broad success. As historian Richard Hofstadter wrote of the paranoid style of conspiracy theorists:

the apocalypticism  of the paranoid style runs dangerously near to hopeless pessimism, but usually stops short of it.

Birthers share the common conspiracy theory pattern of a powerful opponent. They believe that President Obama (or George Soros, the New World Order, the Chicago Mafia, or whoever) can essentially make anyone say anything they want, control news coverage, fabricate evidence, and generally keep everyone in the government (all three branches) looking the other way. The masses are traumatized into acquiescence by the fear of massive race riots. Yet despite the apparently insurmountable obstacles before them, birthers are (at least the more vocal ones on the Internet) very optimistic.

Birthers lose 210 cases in court (plus numerous appeals and the US Supreme Court has turned away all appealed to it), yet many are convinced that the McInnish case in Alabama will succeed. One wrote:

Undoubtedly, the walls are closing in on Obama. Reed Hayes will serve as an unimpeachable witness before Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court and from there the United States Supreme Court will have no options but to declare Obama ineligible.

Despite the abject failure of the Cold Case Posse to gain media respect or traction among the general public after three press conferences, numerous radio interviews and a book, birthers believe that “the evidence that will convince even the greatest skeptic” is in the hands of the Posse awaiting the right moment to be released.

Optimism is so endemic among the birthers that the phrase “any day now” has become the mocking byword of their opponents. Birthers are as much characterized by their optimism as their theories.

So why are conspiracy theorists in general pessimistic, but birthers optimistic?

The first and simplest of the speculations is sort of a “counter conspiracy theory.” It goes… Birthers are irrationally optimistic because they are being mind controlled. Cynical manipulators who either for financial gain or political gain, convince birthers using propaganda techniques and trickery to be optimistic in order to motivate them to consume products (like advertising of generally worthless stuff at WorldNetDaily for example) and to motivate them to contribute money to political causes and to vote in elections. While denying that it was for financial motives, Joseph Farah (editor or WND) admitted that they created the birth certificate controversy:

“Well, it’s popular because of us,” said Farah. “We essentially created it, didn’t we? That wasn’t a decision made because there was a constituency out there waiting for this, [or] it was a way to make money. Those people had to be found.”1

I suppose that’s plausible, but not being a conspiracy theorist, I can’t connect the dots.

I think perhaps a better explanation is in the difference in world view between birthers and other conspiracy theorists. Other conspiracy theorists feel uneasy about the world, and seek to understand it through conspiracy theories. They reject the notion of random events in favor of the machinations of the powerful. It is the individual’s knowledge of the conspiracy that frees him from the control of the conspirators, not the overthrow of the conspirators themselves.

Birthers on the other hand are not trying to understand the world, they are trying to deny it. A sophisticated, moral, religious, attractive and smart black man cannot exist and he certainly cannot be the leader of the country. He cannot be who he appears to be. Birthers are not trying to remove Obama from the presidency; they want to unmake his image and deny that he was ever president. This has been their expressed goal since the beginning. Look at birther language on impeachment: “Obama cannot be impeached because he is not really president.”

Birthers have to be optimistic because their core understanding of who they are and their place in society depends on their being right. Being ruled by a black man simply cannot happen. Belief in their imminent vindication and the overthrow of Obama and everything he has ever done is all that sustains them. They want to wake one day and find that it has all been a bad dream. They cannot bear to think that they will never wake up.

I’d like to add one final observation. Most conventional conspiracy theorists are Gnostics; they believe that salvation comes through individual knowledge. Birthers are messianic in their outlook; they look for a savior to deliver them from the travails of the world (and the birthers have latched onto so very many over the last 5 years). There is a third group who believe they are the instruments of their own salvation and of everyone else: these are the militia types and the really scary ones of the lot.


1The word “or” in brackets appeared in the original article by David Weigel, who reported what he heard, presumably without the “or.” The added word reverses the meaning. Without it, Farah is saying that he started the birther movement to make money. I can only assume that Weigel added the word based on some context that he didn’t publish in order to make the meaning correct.

,

166 Responses to Irrational optimism

  1. avatar
    DP July 23, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

    Bingo.

  2. avatar
    Jim July 23, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

    Doc: “One thing puzzles me about the birthers–their optimism.”

    They’re channeling their inner black man…

    MLK: “I have a dream”

  3. avatar
    Bob July 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm #

    Since virtually everyone (except perhaps the nine people at Orly’s last rally) believes that Obama was born in this country and is eligible to be president nothing about eligibility requirements have changed. If the Birther’s ridiculous claim that “Obama forged his birth certificate” were true it wouldn’t matter anyway.

  4. avatar
    donna July 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm #

    speaking of “irrational”, over at ORYR “This week, Dean Haskins, executive director of The Birther Summit, is in Honolulu to promote a $10,000 award for whomever can produce the actual edition of the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that reported Obama’s Aug. 4, 1961, birth. Even if the print version is produced, however, Haskins’ mission will continue.”

    oh and more blah blah about “african” on the birth certificate

    Kapiolani Medical Center Confirms ‘African’ Never Used On Birth Certificates in 1961 or Now

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/09/kapiolani-medical-center-confirms.html

  5. avatar
    American Mzungu July 23, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

    donna: oh and more blah blah about “african” on the birth certificate
    Kapiolani Medical Center Confirms ‘African’ Never Used On Birth Certificates in 1961 or Now

    Isn’t this a 2011 story?

  6. avatar
    realist July 23, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

    donna: speaking of “irrational”, over at ORYR “This week, Dean Haskins, executive director of The Birther Summit, is in Honolulu to promote a $10,000 award for whomever can produce the actual edition of the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that reported Obama’s Aug. 4, 1961, birth.

    That’s a 2011 story. Haskins disappeared when his big grift of a birtherpalooza did not come to fruition.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 7:00 pm #

    I have a picture of a certified copy of a birth certificate from 1961 from Kapi’olani that says otherwise. ROFL.

    donna: Kapiolani Medical Center Confirms ‘African’ Never Used On Birth Certificates in 1961 or Now

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    Yeah, I thought he had gone to like Argentina or something.

    realist: That’s a 2011 story. Haskins disappeared when his big grift of a birtherpalooza did not come to fruition.

  9. avatar
    gorefan July 23, 2013 at 7:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yeah, I thought he had gone to like Argentina or something.

    I thought Hollywood.

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/letter

    Letter from the Producers

    [skip ]

    We look forward to your reply,

    Dean Haskins & Marco Ciavolino
    Executive Producers

    “An Officer’s Oath” the movie

  10. avatar
    Crustacean July 23, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

    Optimism does serve a purpose. If Linus had allowed himself to accept that there MIGHT NOT BE a Great Pumpkin, would Sally have spent the night with him in that pumpkin patch?

    Any day now, Great Pumpkin…

  11. avatar
    American Mzungu July 23, 2013 at 9:29 pm #

    donna: speaking of “irrational”, over at ORYR

    I went over to ORYR (I’ll take a shower later) and found a story that kicked off a discussion about the use of “African” on Obama’s birth certificate. There was a very brief reference to an article in Employment Research Institute’s JD Journal that attempted to debunk an email about the use of “African” on the birth certificate. That kicked off comments at ORYR about what the appropriate term might be, but that quickly degenerated into an entertaining fight between Falcon and Nancy Owens about who was really an Obot.

    I’m not sure this is the appropriate thread to engage in an expanded discussion about the use of racial identifiers, including “African”, but I think it merits further discussion. Doc, any suggestions for an appropriate thread?

  12. avatar
    Keith July 23, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    Nailed it. Congratulations on one of your best pieces.

    I think perhaps a better explanation is in the difference in world view between birthers and other conspiracy theorists. Other conspiracy theorists feel uneasy about the world, and seek to understand it through conspiracy theories. They reject the notion of random events in favor of the machinations of the powerful. It is the individual’s knowledge of the conspiracy that frees him from the control of the conspirators, not the overthrow of the conspirators themselves.

    Birthers on the other hand are not trying to understand the world, they are trying to deny it. A sophisticated, moral, religious, attractive and smart black man cannot exist and he certainly cannot be the leader of the country. He cannot be who he appears to be. Birthers are not trying to remove Obama from the presidency; they want to unmake his image and deny that he was ever president.

  13. avatar
    Dave July 23, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    I have felt from the beginning that birthers are atypical conspiracy theorists. The first oddity I noticed was that most CTs are eager to discuss their theory with anyone who’ll listen, but if you ask a birther a question, they either ignore you or act like they’re under attack.

    I think here you identify the core of the difference: “Birthers on the other hand are not trying to understand the world, they are trying to deny it.” Or maybe I’d put it this way: most CTs are focussed on the conspiracy, but birthers are only focussed on the outcome — that Obama is illegitimate — and really don’t care what the conspiracy was behind it. Maybe it’s because his father wasn’t a citizen, or maybe it’s because he was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, or maybe his father was Frank Marshall David, or Malcolm X, maybe judges and Congressmen are being threatened, or bribed, maybe Soros is behind it, or the Russians, or the NWO… these are not competing theories, birthers just toss them all off because they really don’t care which theory is right, all they care about is the result. How you get to that result hardly interests them.

    And I get the impression that most CTs can’t see what’s wrong with their theory because they are a bit unhinged, but birthers can’t see what’s wrong with their theory because they aren’t too smart.

  14. avatar
    The Magic M July 24, 2013 at 4:38 am #

    Dave: birthers just toss them all off because they really don’t care which theory is right

    While it is true that many CT’s believe in contradictory parts of their theory, the key difference indeed seems to be that birtherism isn’t a single conspiracy theory but an amalgamation of anything that serves the ultimate purpose – to get the black guy out of the White House and deny he ever belonged there.

    Conspiracy theories are usually very narrow in their core and do not tolerate alternative explanations (even if those are in line with the general conspiracy theme).
    For example, the Moon Landing Hoax theory has very specific “explanations” how every step of the “hoax” was carried out (how they simulated the delays, where they recorded the thing, why nobody ever said a word etc.).
    Birtherism OTOH has little problems with competing theories (his father was Frank Marshall Davis, his father was Malcolm X, his father was Obama sr. but then Vattel holds). This is also very atypical of conspiracy theories (and I wonder why I didn’t notice this earlier).

    All in all, a very enlightening look at the subject, thx Doc!

  15. avatar
    bovril July 24, 2013 at 4:58 am #

    The more I see of Birfoons and their behavior the more I feel vindicated in my opinion that they are a true virtual cult as well as dysfunctional CT’ers

    They not only latch onto every single new (and old) meme or piece of BS that floats, frothy to the surface like ripe Santorum, they MAKE the memes, they wholly believe the memes and it infests and infects all parts of their real lives.

    These people may not only be one of……narcissists, delusional, sociopathic, racist, self harming, isolationist and generally barking mad, they usually are most if not all of them.

    They have a well documented pattern of estrangement from family and friends, self destructive behaviour,

    OCD like activity in support of their views, packrat hoarding of irrelevant data minutiae along with a magpies desire for the shiny-shiny.

    They are consumed by their hate and activities and there is a strong self absorbed ME ME ME need for attention and validation.

    Cannot accept criticism of any part, no matter how small, of their data set and mind state.

    Paranoid and delusional, convinced that they are a major player and self appointed guardian of what is RIGHT (politically as well as morally).

    Convinced rules are for others and any requirement that they have to adhere to these rational norms is a direct attack…

    Cult like behaviour (see Virtual Cult passim).

    As an exercise for the student, here’s a list of behavioural characteristics….How many can you map to your favorite Birfer of choice….. 😎

    Isolation from healthy individuals

    Aggression and paranoia

    Inability to form coherent responses around the meme

    Selective mutism and autism

    Incoherence

    Natural attraction to the similar infected

    Flocking and pack behaviour

    Self mutilation

    Coprophilia and Coprophagia

    Insensate destruction of an individuals personal resources and habitat

    Repetitive unconstructive behaviour

  16. avatar
    scott e July 24, 2013 at 10:05 am #

    you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

  17. avatar
    bovril July 24, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    No Snottie

    You are a racist based on your voluminous posts, all Birfers are bigots, most are seditious scum, many are also racist.

    Do try and keep up.

  18. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    “trying to sell ‘birthers are racists'”

    Birther bigots do a good enough job selling themselves as close minded scum and anti-American lunatics.

    The ones who deny there are seething hordes of bitter birther bigots and racists are in deep denial, ashamed of themselves, too lazy to be bothered or varying combinations.

    They are certainly not difficult to find:

    “Good, I pray that they take Obama thru the wringer, strip him bare and expose the Gay Muslim Maggot for what he really is, an Islamic Jihadist working from the inside to destroy our great nation!”

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/document-expert-could-topple-the-obama-administration/#comment-223089

    or on YouTube:

    RyryYoyo1 3 days ago
    Get that (offensive racist expletive deleted) & killhim!

    (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYx3lUTM2zQ&lc=7HUhF4CVp02oeuf8Hq0W1jhNiW4lws05jOqu3dFGWzo)

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 24, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    You don’t have to be a racist to be a birther. You don’t have to smoke cigarettes to get lung cancer.

    scott e: you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

  20. avatar
    3Fiddy5 July 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    This commentary pretty much sums it all up.. Much of my long interest in birthers has revolved around my inability to comprehend their motivations.

    How can they be so optimistic when they have been at this for 6 years and haven’t moved the needle an inch?

    I’ve wondered how long they could go before they had to come to the obvious and logical conclusion that they were simply incorrect about Obama’s ineligibility.

    I know now that this will never happen.. They cannot let this go. Yet they will never find vindication. It’s almost… sad.

  21. avatar
    scott e July 24, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

    3Fiddy5:
    This commentary pretty much sums it all up.. Much of my long interest in birthers has revolved around my inability to comprehend their motivations.

    How can they be so optimistic when they have been at this for 6 years and haven’t moved the needle an inch?

    I’ve wondered how long they could go before they had to come to the obvious and logical conclusion that they were simply incorrect about Obama’s ineligibility.

    I know now that this will never happen.. Theycannot let this go. Yet they will never find vindication.It’s almost… sad.

    **********

    my optimism is for my country. I was optimistic that an Illinois (Chicago) candidate would do really well, way, way before I was a birther.

    and you guys think any day now is some sort of sinful battle cry.

    I have stated repeatedly this goes according to our timeline, not yours. if the circumstances were opposite, all of you would expect the same, If you say you wouldn’t, I would call that a lie.

    everyone, should be vetted equally or given the same right, and respect to their individual or collective voice. it’s in the constitution.

  22. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 24, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

    One of the very best articles I’ve read on this page, and I applaud you, Doc.

    Yes, it amazes me that the birthers live in a world eternal optimism, when most conspiracy theorists peddle the message of imminent Armageddon and disaster, knowing that the more they can frighten their audience, the better their chance of that audience writing new checks.

    You look at a lot of conventional conspiracy theory nonsense, and their deadline for disaster is usually just close enough that we have to worry about it, but just far enough away for us to give them money and support to prevent the disaster, and, more importantly, just far enough away for us to forget their failed prediction when it never happens.

    Rarely do you get conspiracy theorists pointing at an exact date for disaster, as they invariably get exposed as fools when that big day fails to end with catastrophe. Y2K and the end of the Mayan Calendar are two recent examples of Doomsdays that weren’t.

    On the other hand, conspiracy theorists always seem to get caught by surprise when a real disaster does happen…9/11, for example. Well after the fact, they claim to have foreknowledge (usually that it was an inside job), but never before.

    So the optimism of the birthers is very interesting. Why they are so blindly optimistic about success in the face of courtroom defeats and public derision or disinterest is puzzling.

    However, I would note that when you look at some of the birthers, like Rudy, or the comments sections of their web pages, the views of the supporters, you see the standard conspiracy theory line: Armageddon is a few steps away…the Obots are taking away all of our freedoms…only a military coup/lynch mob can save the American people…and all that overheated and bellicose rhetoric.

    So the leaders may be blindly optimistic, but I think the followers are just conventional conspiracy theorists, sensing doom every time the doorbell rings, thinking that the UPS man or the Water Meter reader at their doorstep is actually the “men in black,” ready to take them to a FEMA camp to be lobotomized.

    And “Scott E?” About birthers being racists? That’s because for the most part, they are, as their own writings and statements repeatedly reveal them.

    And like the top Nazis in Germany, I’m sure that when nailed, many birthers will insist “some of my best friends are black,” or point to having a “pet black” that they treat well. All the top Nazis — even Hitler — did paperwork for some favored Jew, while sending millions of others to their deaths.

  23. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 24, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

    scott e:
    you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

    Rudy Davis says “hello”.

    Personally, I think of you birthers as an extremely lazy, inept version of the Taliban, declaring a Jihad on anyone who won’t play your silly birther games with you. The key difference being that when birthers talk of armed insurgence and threats of violence, you realize you’re all just a bunch of keyboard commandos. My Shih Tzu has more bite!

  24. avatar
    ArthurWankspittle July 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm #

    Some time back I set myself the task of describing “birtherism” as briefly as possible. It came down to five words: “N***** in Whitehouse – send money!”

  25. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 24, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    ArthurWankspittle:
    Some time back I set myself the task of describing “birtherism” as briefly as possible. It came down to five words: “N***** in Whitehouse – send money!”

    Deadly accurate…that’s about it.

  26. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 24, 2013 at 3:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You don’t have to be a racist to be a birther.

    You know, Doc, “Birthers” come in several very different flavors – maybe you should designate a few categories with descriptive names so that posters here could aim a little more accurately at their specific target.

    Suggestions:

    A) Ma & Pa Birthers (2 citizen parents required)

    B) Nativity Birthers (Native birth required but must be demonstrated to an unattainable standard of proof)

    C) Adams Family Birthers (any Birther subscribing to or merely endorsing a crackpot basis for a claim that Obama is ineligible, such as Tim Adams simply asserting without evidence that “everybody knew” that Obama had no long form BC on file in Hawaii! Adams Family Birthers’ willingness to support practically any theory of Obama ineligibility would more often seem to be rooted in racism, or ideological differences, or book-sale augmenting publicity seeking, or personal psychological issues like the long-worded Philosopher Kings displaying their desire to be recognized as geniuses for dismissing the foolish masses’ legitimate President, ala A.R. Nash.)

    D) Orbiting Birthers (Like Rudy and Orly and Rev. Manning, these are bizarre individuals whose claimed motivation is vastly transcended by the fact that their feet never touch the ground.)

  27. avatar
    Dave B. July 24, 2013 at 4:39 pm #

    Then there’s that other entirely sui generis Adams, Linda Joy.

    Benji Franklin: Adams Family Birthers (any Birther subscribing to or merely endorsing a crackpot basis for a claim that Obama is ineligible, such as Tim Adams simply asserting without evidence that “everybody knew” that Obama had no long form BC on file in Hawaii!

  28. avatar
    Bob July 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

    scott e,

    If you’ve written your Congressperson with your concern then you’ve done just about everything you can do. Stop fretting about Obama’s eligibility.

  29. avatar
    Dave B. July 24, 2013 at 4:40 pm #

    Geez, talk about irrational optimism!

    gorefan: I thought Hollywood.

    http://www.commandertaffy.com/letter

    Letter from the Producers

    [skip ]

    We look forward to your reply,

    Dean Haskins & Marco Ciavolino
    Executive Producers

    “An Officer’s Oath” the movie

  30. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 24, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

    Dave B.:
    Geez, talk about irrational optimism!

    Oh, yeah…that’s irrational optimism.

    $25K they need…to get started.

    I want to hear the cast list for this flick.

  31. avatar
    Crustacean July 24, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

    You mean like the commenter on the thread you linked, who had this nifty suggestion for amending the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?

    “…dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another even to the degree of tolerating intolerable ideological or religious beliefs which have and do define themselves through the actions of adherents to such beliefs as the enemy of the liberty which with we are endowed by our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Birthers have a rather unique way with words, do they not?

    Majority Will: Birther bigots do a good enough job selling themselves as close minded scum and anti-American lunatics.

  32. avatar
    Daniel July 24, 2013 at 5:50 pm #

    scott e:
    you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

    Well then you tell me…

    You birthers never worried about the BC or the Parentage, or the kindergarten records or any of the things you’ve been obsessing over for any other sitting President in history. None.

    So what is different about this President that you think he is worth singling out for special harassment and thumbscrewing that you never cared about for any other President?

    Is it because he’s a Democrat? Nope, you didn’t give a rat’s butt about Clinton’s BC, and you certainly didn’t like him. You didn’t care about Jimmy Carter’s BC, or Lyndon Johnson’s BC, or any other Democrat’s BC. So it can’t be just typical hatred of Democrats

    Maybe it’s his policies? No, unfortunately his policies, as much as I disagree with most of them, aren’t particularly more left leaning than any other President, and are more right leaning than many of the policies of past Republican Presidents. Even his health care plan is basically plagiarized from a Republican Health care plan… so that can’t be why you’re singling him out.

    It can’t be because of where he was born, or not born, because you never even bothered to ask about any other President’s BC or birth place, or questioned where they claimed they were born.

    It can’t be because of his “dual citizenship” because firstly he’s not, and secondly we’ve had several Presidents in the past who were dual citizens, and none of you cared about it then.

    It can’t be because of this “citizen parent” crap, because nobody ever heard of or cared about this fictitious Two Citizen Parent requirement until Leo Donofrio invented it in 2005. Leo Donofrio… Drug Addict, failed lawyer, and actual physical manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit (or so he claims anyways). Is that really the kind of guy you want as your Constitutional expert?

    So tell me, unknown, since it’s obviously got nothing to do with his party affiliation, his policies, or his supposed dual citizenship……

    What’s left? What is it that one thing that is different about this President, apart from every other President in history, that causes you to demand of him what you couldn’t care less about for any other?

    If you don’t like the reasonable conclusion that anyone with any sense at all can see staring them right in the face…. then you answer the question.

  33. avatar
    Majority Will July 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm #

    Crustacean: Birthers have a rather unique way with words, do they not?

    And fomenting sedition.

  34. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

    scott e: everyone, should be vetted equally or given the same right, and respect to their individual or collective voice. it’s in the constitution.

    Okay and Obama was vetted the same way as every president before him. So why do you have a problem with only him?

  35. avatar
    Keith July 24, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    scott e: I have stated repeatedly this goes according to our timeline, not yours

    So your timeline is to frog march him out of the White House on 20 January 2017?

    Sometime around noon, I suppose?

  36. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 24, 2013 at 8:18 pm #

    scott e: I have stated repeatedly this goes according to our timeline, not yours.

    Who is the “our” you speak of, scott?

  37. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 24, 2013 at 8:46 pm #

    scott e

    everyone, should be vetted equally or given the same right, and respect to their individual or collective voice. it’s in the constitution.

    Funny, I don’t recall any other presidential candidate in my life time being told “Show us your papers, BOY!”. Because as best I can tell, that is what the birther definition of the word “vetting” is.

  38. avatar
    Reality Check July 24, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    Scott is just pretending to be a somebody when he is the opposite. He apparently lives vicariously through Mike Zullo.
    .

    CarlOrcas: Who is the “our” you speak of, scott?

  39. avatar
    sfjeff July 24, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    scott e: everyone, should be vetted equally or given the same right, and respect to their individual or collective voice. it’s in the constitution.

    Scott- you became a Birther I believe in 2011? So you were a big time birther during the last Presidential election.

    You have- in wierd and disconnected ways- demanded that Barack Obama be ‘vetted’ more.

    So where in the PF forums- where you have been posting since 2011- did you make the same demands of Mitt Romney?

    This is why I call this claim of yours dishonest- and that is the politest way I can say it. I have challenged you on this before.

    If you really believed that all candidates should be vetted equally- where are your dozens if not hundreds of threads questioning Mitt Romney’s eligibility?

    You have a whole website devoted to Birtherism- where did you raise concerns about Mitt there?

    Please Scott- stop pretending- stop claiming you want all candidates vetted equally.

    You had your opportunity to show you believed that in 2012- and you only questioned one candidate- obsessively.

  40. avatar
    Rickey July 24, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    scott e:
    you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

    Not only are many birthers racists, many of them are anti-Semitic as well.

    Here is a recent comment posted on birther George Miller’s site:

    There can be no doubt in any sane persons mind, that the sharecropper squatting in our White House, who thinks he is the Commander in Chief, but is in fact nothing more than a cheap sidewalk thug and a usurper, is hell bent on gutting our military capability to defend the country, and at the same time is financially bankrupting our country into oblivion while he takes lavish vacations and has big name celebrity entertainers to the White House for his party nights. [emphasis mine]

    Here is a recent comment posted at Birther Report:

    Fact is the yids in control ‘off’ any significant opposition or those with first hand evidentiary capacity to out them (hastings, breitbart). They just do. Until it’s acknowledged that DC is run by a small evil cabal of banksters via threats, bribes, intimidation via their organizations such as ADL, SPLC, ACLU, AIPAC, etc. the direction will never change. O is a fraud, but then so is the entire government, so is much of our “knowledge” about our own history. Takes BALLS and NUMBERS to stand up to this trite minority, they are a very few number of people who hold disproportionate power via banks, money supply, media, Hollywood, but again the physical number of persons is small. Without their control over currency they are nothing, which is why they instigate wars with every country which rejects centralized banking. Our government shall not be the venue for anti-goyim agendas.

    Those are the kinds of people you have associated yourself with.

  41. avatar
    Suranis July 24, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    Quotes stuff from racist websites

    Complains about being called a racist

    scott e:
    you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

  42. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 10:01 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Rudy Davis says “hello”.

    Personally, I think of you birthers as an extremely lazy, inept version of the Taliban, declaring a Jihad on anyone who won’t play your silly birther games with you. The key difference beingthat when birthers talk of armed insurgence and threats of violence, you realize you’re all just a bunch of keyboard commandos. My Shih Tzu has more bite!

    ******

    this goes along with sfjeff’s saying I was working for the ayatollah (iran)… lol

    just marginalize/trivialize the opposition, but we’ve seen that illusion to often, sorry.

  43. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 10:03 am #

    Bob:
    scott e,

    If you’ve written your Congressperson with your concern then you’ve done just about everything you can do.Stop fretting about Obama’s eligibility.

    I don’t want to bob, would you ?

  44. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 10:08 am #

    Daniel: Well then you tell me…

    You birthers never worried about the BC or the Parentage, or the kindergarten records or any of the things you’ve been obsessing over for any other sitting President in history. None.

    So what is different about this President that you think he is worth singling out for special harassment and thumbscrewing that you never cared about for any other President?

    Is it because he’s a Democrat? Nope, you didn’t give a rat’s butt about Clinton’s BC, and you certainly didn’t like him. You didn’t care about Jimmy Carter’s BC, or Lyndon Johnson’s BC, or any other Democrat’s BC. So it can’t be just typical hatred of Democrats

    Maybe it’s his policies? No, unfortunately his policies, as much as I disagree with most of them, aren’t particularly more left leaning than any other President, and are more right leaning than many of the policies of past Republican Presidents. Even his health care plan is basically plagiarized from a Republican Health care plan… so that can’t bewhy you’re singling him out.

    It can’t be because of where he was born, or not born, because you never even bothered to ask about any other President’s BC or birth place, or questioned where they claimed they were born.

    It can’t be because of his “dual citizenship” because firstly he’s not, and secondly we’ve had several Presidents in the past who were dual citizens, and none of you cared about it then.

    It can’t be because of this “citizen parent” crap, because nobody ever heard of or cared about this fictitious Two Citizen Parent requirement until Leo Donofrio invented it in 2005. Leo Donofrio… Drug Addict, failed lawyer, and actual physical manifestation of God, the Holy Spirit (or so he claims anyways). Is that really the kind of guy you want as your Constitutional expert?

    So tell me, unknown, since it’s obviously got nothing to do with his party affiliation, his policies, or his supposed dual citizenship……

    What’s left? What is it that one thing that is different about this President, apart from every other President in history, that causes you to demand of him what you couldn’t care less about for any other?

    If you don’t like the reasonable conclusion that anyone with any sense at all can see staring them right in the face…. then you answer the question.

    good points all. for me it really comes down to transparency. if this next round goes nowhere, i’ll reevaluate my position, how’s that ? I still find the antibirthers to be abnormal and interesting. this ain’t no moonlamding.

  45. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 10:16 am #

    sfjeff: Scott- you became a Birther I believe in 2011? So you were a big time birther during the last Presidential election.

    You have- in wierd and disconnected ways- demanded that Barack Obama be ‘vetted’ more.

    So where in the PF forums- where you have been posting since 2011- did you make the same demands of Mitt Romney?

    This is why I call this claim of yours dishonest- and that is the politest way I can say it. I have challenged you on this before.

    If you really believed that all candidates should be vetted equally- where are your dozens if not hundreds of threads questioning Mitt Romney’s eligibility?

    You have a whole website devoted to Birtherism- where did you raise concerns about Mitt there?

    Please Scott- stop pretending- stop claiming you want all candidates vetted equally.

    You had your opportunity to show you believed that in 2012- and you only questioned one candidate- obsessively.

    *****

    the elections are irrelevant, this is about a story. I know you don’t like when I mention Chicago so I won’t.

    vetted by whom jeff ? is there a legal vetting process ? show me where I wrote, one candidate should be treated differently from another. you can’t. you are even the guy who found my quotes saying what’s good for one is good for all.

    has the president ever used the power of elected office, to hide anything detrimental ?

    has the executive branch ever intimidated anyone. I do agree that it’s time to reevaluate the vetting process. you can believe what you want, but you know the omission argument that I wasn’t a banner waiver to vet Romney or anyone else is a hollow premise. I think you are better than that.
    along with the racism claim, it’s a non starter.

  46. avatar
    sfjeff July 25, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    scott e: the elections are irrelevant, this is about a story. I know you don’t like when I mention Chicago so I won’t.
    vetted by whom jeff ? is there a legal vetting process ? show me where I wrote, one candidate should be treated differently from another. you can’t. you are even the guy who found my quotes saying what’s good for one is good for all.

    That is a non- answer

    You had the opportunity to treat the candidates equally in 2012.

    You didn’t.

    You had the opportunity to demand from Mitt Romney, what you demand from Barack Obama.

    You didn’t.

    Your claims that you want both candidates equally vetted are belied by your totally onesided and biased campaign against Barack Obama.

    Since you had the opportunity to treat both candidates the same in 2012, but didn’t- your claims that you call for them to be equally vetted are just clearly a lie.

  47. avatar
    sfjeff July 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    scott e: you are still trying to sell “birthers are racists”. that to me is a pure red flag doc.

    Not all Bithers are racists- I for instance can’t recall you ever saying anything that screams racist to me.

    But others are- Foolardi on PF for one- love it when he called Obama “Buckwheat” when discussing Birtherism. The lately banned MCCP besides being a shill for Zullo started multiple threads regarding the problems of ‘blacks’. The poster who had several sock puppets but started as “Appuzzo’ went on an anti-semitic screed about jews and hollywood.

    Frankly the only reason the Birthers who post on PF don’t join in on the Birther fun is because it is too whacky even for the guys who believe that Negroes are more closely related to chimpanzees than white people.

  48. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm #

    bovril:
    No Snottie

    You are a racist based on your voluminous posts, all Birfers are bigots, most are seditious scum, many are also racist.

    Do try and keep up.

    ****

    w0w man.. that’s pretty harsh.

    “but if you ask a birther a question, they either ignore you or act like they’re under attack.”

    gee, why would anyone think that ??

  49. avatar
    scott e July 25, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

    sfjeff: That is a non- answer

    You had the opportunity to treat the candidates equally in 2012.

    You didn’t.

    You had the opportunity to demand from Mitt Romney, what you demand from Barack Obama.

    You didn’t.

    Your claims that you want both candidates equally vetted are belied by your totally onesided and biased campaign against Barack Obama.

    Since you had the opportunity to treat both candidates the same in 2012, but didn’t- your claims that you call for them to be equally vetted are just clearly a lie.

    you are entitled to your opinion j. I was a gingrich guy. and again, what vetting is there ?

    my attack on the entire Obama administration is not rooted in candidates or elections. I suppose the proof of that will be when he is out of office and I am still with this.

    my interest is cover ups. have there been any ? I think there have. I also think there is pattern behavior.

    but after newt dropped out, I lost interest in the race (election). I did vote though.

    show me a post I wrote where I said “vet Obama, not gingrich”. you can’t.

    plus I was still gathering steam, ’cause I didn’t get involved till 4/27/11, become a birther. not till later than that did I call myself one. I’ve never had a problem with the name though.

    you are arguing the non negative, I will too.

    all candidates should be vetted equally jeff, you know that. going back to pre revolutionary days.

  50. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 25, 2013 at 5:47 pm #

    Okay, since you were a Gingrich guy, show me one thread where you demanded that Gingrich release his long-form birth certificate?

    That alone tells me that you say “vet Obama, not Gingrich.” Actions speak louder than words. Show me where during the time that you were a Gingrich guy that you called for the exact same scruteny of Gingrich, that you gave to Obama. Show me where you demanded that Gingrich release his kindergarten records, and have them open for the public to view.

  51. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm #

    scott e: you are entitled to your opinion j. I was a gingrich guy. and again, what vetting is there ?

    my attack on the entire Obama administration is not rooted in candidates or elections. I suppose the proof of that will be when he is out of office and I am still with this.

    my interest is cover ups. have there been any ? I think there have. I also think there is pattern behavior.

    but after newt dropped out, I lost interest in the race (election). I did vote though.

    show me a post I wrote where I said “vet Obama, not gingrich”. you can’t.

    So in other words to answer his question no you didn’t complain about Gingrich and claim he needed to be vetted unlike what you’re doing with Obama. A short no would have sufficed.

  52. avatar
    Suranis July 25, 2013 at 8:53 pm #

    Scott was satisfied when Gingrich showed his birth certificate.

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: So in other words to answer his question no you didn’t complain about Gingrich and claim he needed to be vetted unlike what you’re doing with Obama.A short no would have sufficed.

  53. avatar
    Suranis July 25, 2013 at 8:56 pm #

    They were vetting candidates for election in Pre revolutionary days? LOL In your fevered dreams sonny.

    You see if we don’t deny this lie Scott slipped in will run off claiming that we “just admitted that the candidates were always vetted even in pre rev times!!!”. Or something.

    scott e: all candidates should be vetted equally jeff, you know that. going back to pre revolutionary days.

  54. avatar
    JD Reed July 25, 2013 at 11:07 pm #

    scott e: you are entitled to your opinion j. I was a gingrich guy. and again, what vetting is there ?my attack on the entire Obama administration is not rooted in candidates or elections. I suppose the proof of that will be when he is out of office and I am still with this. my interest is cover ups. have there been any ? I think there have. I also think there is pattern behavior. but after newt dropped out, I lost interest in the race (election). I did vote though.show me a post I wrote where I said “vet Obama, not gingrich”. you can’t.plus I was still gathering steam, ’cause I didn’t get involved till 4/27/11, become a birther. not till later than that did I call myself one. I’ve never had a problem with the name though.you are arguing the non negative, I will too.all candidates should be vetted equally jeff, you know that. going back to pre revolutionary days.

    You were for Gingrich? That calls your judgement into question right there — a man who tosses his current wife over for a new one twice, and does it in such an insensitve way. One who bills himself as a moral Christian but acts exactly the opposite?
    His nomination would have made the Republican Party’s claims to be the party of family values a laughingstock.

  55. avatar
    Rickey July 26, 2013 at 12:58 am #

    scott e: good points all. for me it really comes down to transparency. if this next round goes nowhere, i’ll reevaluate my position, how’s that ? I still find the antibirthers to be abnormal and interesting. this ain’t no moon landing.

    Those comments are Scott in a nutshell.

    Daniel asks you several relevant questions, and instead of giving him the decency of a response you say “good points all” and change the subject.

    Did you ever express any concern about Romney’s lack of transparency when he refused to release all but the last couple of years of his tax returns?

  56. avatar
    Keith July 26, 2013 at 1:46 am #

    scott e: you are entitled to your opinion j. I was a gingrich guy. and again, what vetting is there ?

    What vetting did you perform for Gingrich? Have you seen his vault copy birth record (i.e. not a PDF image of a Birth Certificate)? What about his school records? His tax records?

    To what personal ethics does Gingrich hold? How many wives has he tossed under the bus?

    To what public ethics does Gingrich hold? Does violation of Congressional Ethics while holding the most powerful position in the House, paying a huge fine, and resigning to avoid being ejected from the House qualify him to hold the most powerful position in the Country (if not the world)?

    Obama has had vetting via from intense media scrutiny through two Presidential election cycles, and has survived all your attempts to smear him. What has Gingrich done in comparison?

    I ask again, what did YOU do to vet Gingrich?

  57. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 26, 2013 at 9:56 am #

    scott e: good points all. for me it really comes down to transparency. if this next round goes nowhere, i’ll reevaluate my position, how’s that ? I still find the antibirthers to be abnormal and interesting. this ain’t no moonlamding.

    You’ve have 200 such rounds that have gone nowhere yet you continue to believe this. I have a feeling the next go around you’ll still be a birther and keep the same position.

  58. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 26, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    Every time Scott is asked to back up a claim, or answer a question, he derps out.

  59. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    Keith: What vetting did you perform for Gingrich? Have you seen his vault copy birth record (i.e. not a PDF image of a Birth Certificate)? What about his school records? His tax records?

    To what personal ethics does Gingrich hold? How many wives has he tossed under the bus?

    To what public ethics does Gingrich hold? Does violation of Congressional Ethics while holding the most powerful position in the House, paying a huge fine, and resigning to avoid being ejected from the House qualify him to hold the most powerful position in the Country (if not the world)?

    Obama has had vetting via from intense media scrutiny through two Presidential election cycles, and has survived all your attempts to smear him. What has Gingrich done in comparison?

    I ask again, what did YOU do to vet Gingrich?

    ******

    I ask again, what could I have done ? I didn’t vet Obama either, how could I ?? I don’t have an access like that, I don’t think any of us do.

    why are you still trying to sell the idea that I think candidates should be treated differently ?

    there are some who complain that the media didn’t do it’s job. I do happen to think the mainstream has a liberal bent, but there are examples on both sides. I can’t be responsible for what other people do. I am not a vetter of any kind.

  60. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    Rickey: Those comments are Scott in a nutshell.

    Daniel asks you several relevant questions, and instead of giving him the decency of a response you say “good points all” and change the subject.

    Did you ever express any concern about Romney’s lack of transparency when he refused to release all but the last couple of years of his tax returns?

    I thought since Obama released his taxes, Romney, or any of them should too. I thought harry reid making accusations from the floor of the senate was tacky. and I thought the irs would know more than harry reid, right ? (more than hisword on the street source). to my knowledge, the irs has brought no charges against mitt Romney or barack Obama, for tax evasion. but if they are guilty, they should pay… right ?

    Romney/gingrich/cain/santorum/ et al. should have shown everything too, when you enter into public service at that level your life should be an open book. same for everyone. no exceptions. but as far as I know there is no authority which conducts vetting. the senate had sr511, but that seems more like an affirmation via advise and consent (like). privacy statues should come into play for all equally.

  61. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:42 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: So in other words to answer his question no you didn’t complain about Gingrich and claim he needed to be vetted unlike what you’re doing with Obama.A short no would have sufficed.

    no, that’s what you all are trying to get me to say. sorry man.

  62. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:45 am #

    sfjeff: That is a non- answer

    You had the opportunity to treat the candidates equally in 2012.

    You didn’t.

    You had the opportunity to demand from Mitt Romney, what you demand from Barack Obama.

    You didn’t.

    Your claims that you want both candidates equally vetted are belied by your totally onesided and biased campaign against Barack Obama.

    Since you had the opportunity to treat both candidates the same in 2012, but didn’t- your claims that you call for them to be equally vetted are just clearly a lie.

    I don’t think i’ve demanded anything, except the truth. I wasn’t really into the election that much. I liked watching the debates though.

    you guys think I have the power to demand or vet anyone. vetting is so obscure/undefined. like natural born citizen.

  63. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    CarlOrcas: Who is the “our” you speak of, scott?

    why, the birthers, of course. The American people that still have doubts about Obama’s provenance. just what is the harm in seeing what zullo has, and what’s in reed haye’s report. ??

  64. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 26, 2013 at 10:52 am #

    The fact that he backed Gingrich in the first place shows that he has a penknife to grind against Obama…and yes, most of the birther hatred to Obama is absolutely racial.

    Don’t believe me, Scott e? Read the stuff on Pat Gund’s “Bad Fiction” web page, where the birthers are reprinted in all their racist fury.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    I think this “vetting” argument is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. Some of the Obots like to pull it out in the context of an argument that birthers have ulterior motives beyond evidence-based doubts. I suspect birthers do have ulterior motives, but the lack of advocacy in the cause of vetting is no more proof or racism than the photos of a pregnant Ann Dunham prove Obama was born in Kenya. They are both nonsense.

    Basically the vetting argument says “you have no standing to argue because your motives are not pure.” That’s really silly when you come to think about it and is the essence of an ad hominem.

    Birthers have a simple response to this vetting argument by saying: “I never had occasion to think about vetting until all this controversy about Obama came along, and it showed me how important it is.” Any fool can come up with that, and if they can, then the challenge is disingenuous.

    scott e: I don’t think i’ve demanded anything, except the truth. I wasn’t really into the election that much. I liked watching the debates though.

    you guys think I have the power to demand or vet anyone. vetting is so obscure/undefined. like natural born citizen.

  66. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Okay and Obama was vetted the same way as every president before him.So why do you have a problem with only him?

    there are too many coincidences and omissions in his life story. his associations, anomalies, mistakes, cover stories, hearsay (conflicting accounts), political campaign coverups, changes, misdirections cronie capitalism, threats and intimidation perhaps, we are still finding out if such tactics are/have been used by the administration
    and of course, he’s the president we have now. I can promise you my interest will not wane, once he is out of office. this fascinates me to no end.

    I still hope i’m wrong though, but I don’t think we no everything. listen, there are a lot of decent kind people who still have doubts, not here though.

    and I would be remis, if I didn’t mention all of you, the way you act. in my mind you have spent way more than the appropriate amount of time and effort for a non issue.

    let’s just see what happens with this next round.

    I don’t expect you to like my answers, but you will say I never answer, that could be confusing.

  67. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 11:02 am #

    Majority Will: And fomenting sedition.

    I have to be careful with that. any kind of sedition.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 11:03 am #

    I don’t think anyone was claiming that Romney was guilty of criminal tax evasion, or that he didn’t file returns, just that he didn’t pay any taxes. There are all sorts of gimmicks and loopholes that might create a situation where someone wealthy wouldn’t have to pay taxes.

    You might consider Harry Reid’s comment “tacky” but it was no more or less tacky than what was coming from both sides every day.

    scott e: I thought since Obama released his taxes, Romney, or any of them should too. I thought harry reid making accusations from the floor of the senate was tacky. and I thought the irs would know more than harry reid, right ? (more than hisword on the street source). to my knowledge, the irs has brought no charges against mitt Romney or barack Obama, for tax evasion. but if they are guilty, they should pay… right ?

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 11:07 am #

    I do not believe that the record bears that out. And you use that weasel phrase that lets you assert facts without evidence “we are still finding out.” “We are still finding out” sounds so much more positive than “we really don’t know.” And what you don’t know seems to be the foundation of your birther writing in general: something out of nothing.

    scott e: there are too many coincidences and omissions in his life story. his associations, anomalies, mistakes, cover stories, hearsay (conflicting accounts), political campaign coverups, changes, misdirections cronie capitalism, threats and intimidation perhaps, we are still finding out if such tactics are/have been used by the administration
    and of course, he’s the president we have now. I can promise you my interest will not wane, once he is out of office. this fascinates me to no end.

  70. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 11:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think this “vetting” argument is essentially an ad hominem fallacy. Some of the Obots like to pull it out in the context of an argument that birthers have ulterior motives beyond evidence-based doubts. I suspect birthers do have ulterior motives, but the lack of advocacy in the cause of vetting is no more proofor racism than the photos of a pregnant Ann Dunham prove Obama was born in Kenya. They are both nonsense.

    Basically the vetting argument says “you have no standing to argue because your motives are not pure.” That’s really silly when you come to think about it and is the essence of an ad hominem.

    Birthers have a simple response to this vetting argument by saying: “I never had occasion to think about vetting until all this controversy about Obama came along, and it showed me how important it is.” Any fool can come up with that, and if they can, then the challenge is disingenuous.

    thanks doc, well said. I have freely admitted that I don’t care for Obama the politician, his policies and more to the point his machine and administration. I doubt equally axelrod, gibbs, Jarrett, carney, Stephanie cutter et al.. I think the antis are trying to pidgeonhole me as a racist or anything specific to the man. my scope of doubt is more pervasive.

  71. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    There’s a huge dose of irony coming from a birther who demands transparency from elected officials and yet supported Newt Gingrich who was secretly committing adultery while at the same time angrily and passionately condemning President Clinton for breaking the same Commandment and calling for the President’s resignation.

  72. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 26, 2013 at 11:12 am #

    scott e: why, the birthers, of course. The American people that still have doubts about Obama’s provenance. just what is the harm in seeing what zullo has, and what’s in reed haye’s report. ??

    Why don’t you tell us why they won’t release what they claim they have

  73. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I do not believe that the record bears that out. And you use that weasel phrase that lets you assert facts without evidence “we are still finding out.” “We are still finding out” sounds so much more positive than “we really don’t know.” And what you don’t know seems to be the foundation of your birther writing in general: something out of nothing.

    when did new information become a sin. it was ok for all of you a couple of weeks ago when NBC was touting the new Xerox theory, n’est-ce pas ??

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 11:14 am #

    New information is fine. Future information is not.

    scott e: when did new information become a sin

  75. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 11:15 am #

    scott e: why, the birthers, of course. The American people that still have doubts about Obama’s provenance. just what is the harm in seeing what zullo has, and what’s in reed haye’s report. ??

    Another non-response response.

    First, the “American people” don’t have doubts. A few “birthers” (like you) continue to play the game but it’s over.

    Second, I’ve never said Zullo and Hayes shouldn’t make their information public, have I? No….in fact like any reasonable person I wonder why they don’t make it public today…..right now. Only birthers (like you) are willing to continue nibbling at the “any day now” hook.

    Birthers (like you) claim we’re dealing with the greatest crime in the history of the republic but you have no problem with being strung along by a phony investigator conducting a non-existent investigation.

    When does the string run out for the birthers, scott?

  76. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 26, 2013 at 11:16 am #

    scott e: there are too many coincidences and omissions in his life story

    Only in your head Scott. What such “omissions or coincidences in his life story do you claim exist that don’t exist in any other President’s story?

    scott e: his associations, anomalies, mistakes, cover stories, hearsay (conflicting accounts), political campaign coverups, changes, misdirections cronie capitalism, threats and intimidation perhaps,

    Vague generalities do you have anything concrete to base these accusations of yours on? Like say Campaign coverups? Which supposed threats and intimidations are you talking about?

    scott e: I still hope i’m wrong though, but I don’t think we no everything. listen, there are a lot of decent kind people who still have doubts, not here though.

    I have yet to find a single decent person who is a birther. I’ve found once you let them talk long enough they expose themselves as not being “kind and honest” people.

    scott e: let’s just see what happens with this next round.
    I don’t expect you to like my answers, but you will say I never answer, that could be confusing.

    Except it’s not about me not liking your responses it’s that you often don’t actually give a response and instead derail the discussion while avoiding actually answering the question.

    Yes I suppose when Larry Klayman’s suit is thrown out and by December the cold case posse will have still presented nothing you will still be a birtherin’

  77. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    scott e: et’s just see what happens with this next round.

    What round is that, scott? How long do you give this one and how many more are you willing to deal with after this one?

  78. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 26, 2013 at 11:24 am #

    scott e: there are too many coincidences and omissions in his life story. his associations, anomalies,mistakes, cover stories, hearsay (conflicting accounts), political campaign coverups, changes, misdirections cronie capitalism, threats and intimidation perhaps, we are still finding out if such tactics are/have been used by the administration
    and of course, he’s the president we have now. I can promise you my interest will not wane, once he is out of office. this fascinates me to no end.

    I still hope i’m wrong though, but I don’t think we no everything. listen, there are a lot of decent kind people who still have doubts, not here though.

    and I would be remis, if I didn’t mention all of you, the way you act. in my mind you have spent way more than the appropriate amount of time and effort for a non issue.

    let’s just see what happens with this next round.

    I don’t expect you to like my answers, but you will say I never answer, that could be confusing.

    Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. One minute you have this as a titanic issue upon which the nation’s future depends, the next minute you are chiding us for giving your attacks and behavior so much energy, saying that we spend too much time and energy on a non-issue.

    If you birthers didn’t clog up the courts, sully the public discourse, spout racist rhetoric, and threaten sedition, violence, and revolution, we would not give you any attention.

    But you abuse this nation’s courts, insult our intelligence, exhaust our patience, pollute the public discourse, and threaten violent revolution. These behaviors cannot be ignored.

    And you don’t answer. You are presenting a case, it is your duty to research it, formulate your theory of the case, and present it in a logical, coherent, accurate, truthful manner. The burden of proof of evidence is upon YOU.

    Just “asking questions” does not cut it. You cannot put the burden of proof on your opponent. That is intellectually lazy and morally deceitful. You want to prove President Obama is a Kenyan-born homosexual socialist Muslim who faked his entire career in politics and public service at the behest of an evil liberal-Muslim-Communist conspiracy?

    You have to present unimpeachable evidence that he and his backers have done so. Not just “ask questions.” Whinging about non-existent discrepancies in the birth certificate and speculating about wide-ranging conspiracies that would tax the imagination of James Bond’s scriptwriters won’t fly.

    Doing so will get you money from supporters and undeserved attention. But it is not telling the truth, is is not accountable academic research, and it is not behaving with honor.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  79. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    Kiwiwriter: Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. One minute you have this as a titanic issue upon which the nation’s future depends, the next minute you are chiding us for giving your attacks and behavior so much energy, saying that we spend too much time and energy on a non-issue.

    If you birthers didn’t clog up the courts, sully the public discourse, spout racist rhetoric, and threaten sedition, violence, and revolution, we would not give you any attention.

    But you abuse this nation’s courts, insult our intelligence, exhaust our patience, pollute the public discourse, and threaten violent revolution. These behaviors cannot be ignored.

    And you don’t answer. You are presenting a case, it is your duty to research it, formulate your theory of the case, and present it in a logical, coherent, accurate, truthful manner. The burden of proof of evidence is upon YOU.

    Just “asking questions” does not cut it. You cannot put the burden of proof on your opponent. That is intellectually lazy and morally deceitful. You want to prove President Obama is a Kenyan-born homosexual socialist Muslim who faked his entire career in politics and public service at the behest of an evil liberal-Muslim-Communist conspiracy?

    You have to present unimpeachable evidence that he and his backers have done so. Not just “ask questions.” Whinging about non-existent discrepancies in the birth certificate and speculating about wide-ranging conspiracies that would tax the imagination of James Bond’s scriptwriters won’t fly.

    Doing so will get you money from supporters and undeserved attention. But it is not telling the truth, is is not accountable academic research, and it is not behaving with honor.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Well said.

  80. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    @scott e: I must admit, in reading your drivel I notice that you’re evasive, condescending, and untruthful. But, I’d be willing to give you a chance to redeem yourself, if you have the courage of your convictions (which you’ve proven time and time again you don’t). I can ask you 5 simple questions, and if you answer truthfully, YOU will prove the President was and always has been eligible. But, you won’t take the challenge…because in your heart and mind you know he always has been.

  81. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 11:28 am #

    scott e: thanks doc, well said. I have freely admitted that I don’t care for Obama the politician, his policies and more to the point his machine and administration. I doubt equally axelrod, gibbs, Jarrett, carney, Stephanie cutter et al.. I think the antis are trying to pidgeonhole me as a racist or anything specific to the man. my scope of doubt is more pervasive.

    So why don’t you deal with the policies? Tell us which ones you don’t like and why?

  82. avatar
    Greenfinches July 26, 2013 at 11:48 am #

    Rickey quoting from Birther Report : small evil cabal of banksters via threats, bribes, intimidation via their organizations such as ADL, SPLC, ACLU,

    What nonsense they talk…. SPLC and ACLU are fine organisations, and many miles away from banksters! But they do try to stop the loony white right from profiting from too many misdeeds, I suppose far worse behaviour than that of any economy-destroying bankster.

    Glory be,to live inside such a mind……………

  83. avatar
    Greenfinches July 26, 2013 at 11:52 am #

    Kiwiwriter: Here endeth the lesson.

    Oh good stuff, sir, good stuff! Tho’ I fear your pupil will be unresponsive.

  84. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    Greenfinches: Oh good stuff, sir, good stuff!Tho’ I fear your pupil will be unresponsive.

    No, we won’t hear from him…I already pointed out to him that the vast energy he is wasting on his quest could be put to better use in community service, and he ignored that.

  85. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 26, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

    Greenfinches: What nonsense they talk…. SPLC and ACLU are fine organisations, and many miles away from banksters!But they do try to stop the loony white right from profiting from too many misdeeds,I suppose far worse behaviour than that of any economy-destroying bankster.

    Glory be,to live inside such a mind……………

    Yeah, I get amused by that…the ACLU has defended numerous right-wingers, including neo-Nazis. The SPLC fights racists and racism, which of course irritates birthers, because they just can’t stand that black man with the African name in the White House.

    It’ll be interesting to see the racist fury when Cory Booker runs for president. Born and raised in Harrington Park, New Jersey, devoutly Christian, Rhodes scholar, mayor of Newark, both parents American citizens going way back. I’m sure the Birthers will concoct a theory that he was born in England and grew up in the Falkland Islands.

  86. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: It’ll be interesting to see the racist fury when Cory Booker runs for president.

    They’ll find something to ex-cory-ate.

  87. avatar
    misha marinsky July 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Born and raised in Harrington Park

    Minor correction. Booker was born in DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker

    Kiwiwriter: I’m sure the Birthers will concoct a theory that he was born in England and grew up in the Falkland Islands.

    No, the same bunch will say, “DC is not a state. What? Al Gore was born in DC?! Well, that’s different.

    OK, so Gore was born in DC. The Supremes ruled Booker is only 3/5 of a man. Remember, the court never reversed itself. That ruling is the opposite of the 14th Amendment, so we’re going with Justice Taney. Can’t you read?”

  88. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

    CarlOrcas: So why don’t you deal with the policies? Tell us which ones you don’t like and why?

    well some I really like. don’t forget i’m a musician first. i’m pro choice with limitations. I think he exudes a lot of confidence, he handles the role quite elegantly, inspires confidence to his followers. he’s pro education and R & D, important, I don’t think the government should be in business with the private sector though. his foreign policy is scattered, but i’ll be glad when we’re out of Afghanistan.

    he looks out for the poor and indigent, I believe his empathy is genuine. I have always liked michelle I think she has done a great job. a first mate has to focus on a few specific things, I like her choices.

    I adore his supreme court choices. Kagan & Sotomayor. they are impeccable and above reproach, and I like their senses of humor.

    I like taking energy to the sun, but I don’t believe in climate control, the earth will decide. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern for future generations.

    I want the federal government to grow smaller.
    no gun laws in Vermont, the safest state, also the greenest.
    there are a few, no one here has ever asked me that here, thanks.

  89. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 26, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    Majority Will: Well said.

    I second that. Scott is like most birthers they contradict themselves. If no one paid attention to them he’d complain that this is such a big issue that it’s being ignored and there must be a conspiracy. When we debunk his nonsense he claims it must be true because we spend time making him look like a fool.

  90. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm #

    Jim:
    @scott e: I must admit, in reading your drivel I notice that you’re evasive, condescending, and untruthful.But, I’d be willing to give you a chance to redeem yourself, if you have the courage of your convictions (which you’ve proven time and time again you don’t).I can ask you 5 simple questions, and if you answer truthfully, YOU will prove the President was and always has been eligible.But, you won’t take the challenge…because in your heart and mind you know he always has been.

    you don’t have to give me a chance jim to redeem myself . someone else will.

    but if you like go ahead with the five questions.

  91. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think anyone was claiming that Romney was guilty of criminal tax evasion, or that he didn’t file returns, just that he didn’t pay any taxes. There are all sorts of gimmicks and loopholes that might create a situation where someone wealthy wouldn’t have to pay taxes.

    You might consider Harry Reid’s comment “tacky” but it was no more or less tacky than what was coming from both sides every day.

    right, it’s what legal, and at the time politically apropos. but when I looked at the tape of reid he says “because he hasn’t”. that seem clear to me.

    my only objection was doing it from the senate floor. if he had evidence he should have brought it. if it was true Romney should have been prosecuted, or disqualified. those we’re my objections, I forgot how long it was before the general election on nov. 4th (I think)

  92. avatar
    Majority Will July 26, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: I second that.Scott is like most birthers they contradict themselves.If no one paid attention to them he’d complain that this is such a big issue that it’s being ignored and there must be a conspiracy.When we debunk his nonsense he claims it must be true because we spend time making him look like a fool.

    More often than not, the motivation of a jackass is just to be a jackass.

  93. avatar
    scott e July 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm #

    CarlOrcas: What round is that, scott? How long do you give this one and how many more are you willing to deal with after this one?

    I think the reed hayes report, he’s a forensic document guy I guess.
    the second thing I don’t know. I guess i’ll know when it happens.

  94. avatar
    sfjeff July 26, 2013 at 2:08 pm #

    scott e: all candidates should be vetted equally jeff, you know that. going back to pre revolutionary days.

    I will go back to the facts- the facts is that in the 2012 Presidential campaign you treated the Presidential campaigns in a discriminatory fashion- you demanded that Obama be vetted differently than you did Romney- or your buddy Gingrich for that matter.

    You may have said “vet them all equaly’ but you actions have belied your statements.

    Its like Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman.

  95. avatar
    sfjeff July 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    scott e: you guys think I have the power to demand or vet anyone. vetting is so obscure/undefined. like natural born citizen.

    You have the ‘power’ to start threads on PF. You have the power of your own Website- this is all part of the public vetting process.

    You have used that power unequally and discriminatory fashion.

    You never started any threads questioning Romney on anything- including his taxes.

    I will be glad to point this out again each and every time that you claim that you want every candidate vetted the same- because in the 2012 campaign- you only demanded vetting of one candidate- Barack Obama- and were silent on the vetting of the other candidate.

  96. avatar
    Monkey Boy July 26, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    scott e: thanks doc, well said. I have freely admitted that I don’t care for Obama the politician, his policies and more to the point his machine and administration. I doubt equally axelrod, gibbs, Jarrett, carney, Stephanie cutter et al.. I think the antis are trying to pidgeonhole me as a racist or anything specific to the man. my scope of doubt is more pervasive.

    You lie! If you liked Bush II, then you should absolutely love Obama since he has continued most of his repugnant policies and all of his dastardly wars.

    You birthers’ fanatical opposition to Obama MUST be because of who he is, not because of any policy.

  97. avatar
    Monkey Boy July 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    scott e: you guys think I have the power to demand or vet anyone. vetting is so obscure/undefined. like natural born citizen.

    So then, the College of Electors, and by implication, the Congress of the United States, who are charged by the Constitution to conduct the “vetting” of candidates should be left alone to do their jobs.

  98. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

    sfjeff: Its like Clinton saying he never had sex with that woman.

    He didn’t! She did all the work, he just stood there…with a shit-eating grin! 😀

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm #

    Odd reply to my comment which suggested that Romney didn’t do anything illegal. Since when does the use of legal tax loopholes lead to prosecution or disqualification?

    scott e: my only objection was doing it from the senate floor. if he had evidence he should have brought it. if it was true Romney should have been prosecuted, or disqualified. those we’re my objections, I forgot how long it was before the general election on nov. 4th (I think)

  100. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 4:24 pm #

    scott e: I think the reed hayes report, he’s a forensic document guy I guess.
    the second thing I don’t know. I guess i’ll know when it happens.

    You “guess”? Okay. So let’s say he is a “forensic document guy” how do you think he is going to be able to say anything worthwhile since he hasn’t seen any document? He has, from what I know, seen the images we have all seen but nothing more and certainly not the original birth record in Hawaii. Right? So what do you expect him to say anything definitive about a document or documents he hasn’t seen?

  101. avatar
    Dave B. July 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm #

    You know, you could just answer the question.

    scott e: CarlOrcas: So why don’t you deal with the policies? Tell us which ones you don’t like and why?

    well some I really like. don’t forget i’m a musician first. i’m pro choice with limitations. I think he exudes a lot of confidence, he handles the role quite elegantly, inspires confidence to his followers. he’s pro education and R & D, important, I don’t think the government should be in business with the private sector though. his foreign policy is scattered, but i’ll be glad when we’re out of Afghanistan.

    he looks out for the poor and indigent, I believe his empathy is genuine. I have always liked michelle I think she has done a great job. a first mate has to focus on a few specific things, I like her choices.

    I adore his supreme court choices. Kagan & Sotomayor. they are impeccable and above reproach, and I like their senses of humor.

    I like taking energy to the sun, but I don’t believe in climate control, the earth will decide. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern for future generations.

    I want the federal government to grow smaller.
    no gun laws in Vermont, the safest state, also the greenest.
    there are a few, no one here has ever asked me that here, thanks.

  102. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm #

    scott e: think the reed hayes report, he’s a forensic document guy I guess.

    Except he’s not a “forensic document guy”. He’s a handwriting analyst or “graphologist” a psuedo science not accepted in the traditional forensic document examiner community. Your hopes and dreams lay with #214 of the people Zullo called and the only one willing to write a report Zullo’s way for money. Well that’s if he even wrote a report.

  103. avatar
    Jim July 26, 2013 at 4:52 pm #

    @scott e: What evidence do you have that the President’s mother is NOT Stanley Ann Dunham?

  104. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 4:53 pm #

    scott e: well some I really like. don’t forget i’m a musician first. i’m pro choice with limitations. I think he exudes a lot of confidence, he handles the role quite elegantly, inspires confidence to his followers. he’s pro education and R & D, important, I don’t think the government should be in business with the private sector though. his foreign policy is scattered, but i’ll be glad when we’re out of Afghanistan.

    he looks out for the poor and indigent, I believe his empathy is genuine. I have always liked michelle I think she has done a great job. a first mate has to focus on a few specific things, I like her choices.

    I adore his supreme court choices. Kagan & Sotomayor. they are impeccable and above reproach, and I like their senses of humor.

    I like taking energy to the sun, but I don’t believe in climate control, the earth will decide. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern for future generations.

    I want the federal government to grow smaller.
    no gun laws in Vermont, the safest state, also the greenest.
    there are a few, no one here has ever asked me that here, thanks.

    Fascinating. 196 words and not a clear, cogent thought from you on which Obama policies you don’t like.

  105. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 26, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

    Dave B.: You know, you could just answer the question.

    Amazing, isn’t it? 196 words of nothing.

  106. avatar
    Slartibartfast July 26, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

    Okay, I’ll admit that this comment makes you (in my experience) unique for a birther, but your comments on President Obama’s eligibility are still disrespectful to Doc and every other commenter here.

    I would also point out that if you let the Earth decide (which is really making the decision to ignore our own culpability in causing climate change), it will probably decide on far less humans than currently occupy the planet. The Earth will be fine, but if we don’t start reducing and reversing our impact on the climate immediately, the planet will become a far less hospitable place for humanity.

    scott e: well some I really like. don’t forget i’m a musician first. i’m pro choice with limitations. I think he exudes a lot of confidence, he handles the role quite elegantly, inspires confidence to his followers. he’s pro education and R & D, important, I don’t think the government should be in business with the private sector though. his foreign policy is scattered, but i’ll be glad when we’re out of Afghanistan.

    he looks out for the poor and indigent, I believe his empathy is genuine. I have always liked michelle I think she has done a great job. a first mate has to focus on a few specific things, I like her choices.

    I adore his supreme court choices. Kagan & Sotomayor. they are impeccable and above reproach, and I like their senses of humor.

    I like taking energy to the sun, but I don’t believe in climate control, the earth will decide. I think overpopulation is a bigger concern for future generations.

    I want the federal government to grow smaller.
    no gun laws in Vermont, the safest state, also the greenest.
    there are a few, no one here has ever asked me that here, thanks.

  107. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm #

    Oh, and Scott, I’m lumping you in with “people” like Falcon, simply because I’ve hit a point where I see all birthers as hostile scum. I judge you by the company you choose to keep, and the company you keep are inhuman filth. Racists, homophobes, Sandy Hook deniers, seditionists, people who find American cities going bankrupt as “funny”, RWNJs, unbalanced nuts who cling to assault rifles, etc. Birtherism contains all these things and more.

    I wish birthers would go find some rock to live on, preferably one with a high tide, because America is NOT the country for them.

  108. avatar
    Keith July 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: It’ll be interesting to see the racist fury when Cory Booker runs for president. Born and raised in Harrington Park, New Jersey, devoutly Christian, Rhodes scholar, mayor of Newark, both parents American citizens going way back. I’m sure the Birthers will concoct a theory that he was born in England and grew up in the Falkland Islands.

    So Booker is secretly an Argentinian? Can set a trap for him when the USA plays Argentina in the World Cup?

  109. avatar
    Dave B. July 27, 2013 at 1:31 am #

    And that’s just for one comment.

    CarlOrcas: Amazing, isn’t it? 196 words of nothing.

  110. avatar
    scott e July 27, 2013 at 9:11 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    Okay, I’ll admit that this comment makes you (in my experience) unique for a birther, but your comments on President Obama’s eligibility are still disrespectful to Doc and every other commenter here.

    I would also point out that if you let the Earth decide (which is really making the decision to ignore our own culpability in causing climate change), it will probably decide on far less humans than currently occupy the planet.The Earth will be fine, but if we don’t start reducing and reversing our impact on the climate immediately, the planet will become a far less hospitable place for humanity.

    I have a pretty small carbon footprint.

  111. avatar
    scott e July 27, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    Jim:
    @scott e: What evidence do you have that the President’s mother is NOT Stanley Ann Dunham?

    none. I don’t think I ever said she wasn’t.

  112. avatar
    scott e July 27, 2013 at 9:14 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Except he’s not a “forensic document guy”.He’s a handwriting analyst or “graphologist” a psuedo science not accepted in the traditional forensic document examiner community.Your hopes and dreams lay with #214 of the people Zullo called and the only one willing to write a report Zullo’s way for money.Well that’s if he even wrote a report.

    ok, well that settles that. I thought he had testified in court.

  113. avatar
    scott e July 27, 2013 at 9:17 am #

    CarlOrcas: You “guess”? Okay. So let’s say he is a “forensic document guy” how do you think he is going to be able to say anything worthwhile since he hasn’t seen any document? He has, from what I know, seen the images we have all seen but nothing more and certainly not the original birth record in Hawaii. Right? So what do you expect him to say anything definitive about a document or documents he hasn’t seen?

    I don’t know what to expect. but I have also said that, that it’s virtual has worked very well, if there is no certificate in the book in the vault. which i’d like to see, but I don’t see how.

  114. avatar
    scott e July 27, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Odd reply to my comment which suggested that Romney didn’t do anything illegal. Since when does the use of legal tax loopholes lead to prosecution or disqualification?

    I agree, that comes from the legislative branch. however irs agents carry guns.

    there is suspicion and protocol, which is under the umbrella the executive branch.

    I can’t say if Romney, or anyone else, including Obama, has/have done anything illegal. if they had we would know about it (hopefully).

    legal loopholes are legal. however, even the allegation//accusation can carry political persuasion (especially at election time), which I think was more the case here.
    I don’t know if sen reid really believed what he was saying or not.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 9:38 am #

    Did Hayes testify in court? What did he say?

    One presumes that as a handwriting expert he had provided an expert opinion on the authenticity of a questioned signature. But we really don’t know what he has testified in court. I exhausted my resources in trying to find any court testimony of his–not saying that he never testified in court, but that what he testified isn’t available to me online.

    No source claims that Hayes has ever testified as to the authenticity of an electronic document, or that he has any expertise on that topic more than the average guy on the street.

    Without more information, we don’t know what Hayes said, why he said it, and whether it would be admissible in a court case that will probably never take place.

    scott e: ok, well that settles that. I thought he had testified in court.

  116. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Without more information, we don’t know what Hayes said, why he said it, and whether it would be admissible in a court case that will probably never take place.

    Even if you buy Zullo’s book, you won’t know what Hayes really said, because Zullo will never release an unedited version of the report. And we know Zullo’s penchant for not being accurate with his so-called evidence.

  117. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 27, 2013 at 11:00 am #

    scott e: I have a pretty small carbon footprint.

    I don’t know about that Scott you seem to let off a lot of polluted hot air.

  118. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 27, 2013 at 11:01 am #

    scott e: ok, well that settles that. I thought he had testified in court.

    See this is the problem with you Scott you don’t even vet the claims birther make. He has not testified in court as a “forensic document guy”. He testified a decade ago for a handwriting analysis. The guy really needs to update his resume.

  119. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 27, 2013 at 11:02 am #

    scott e: I don’t know what to expect. but I have also said that, that it’s virtual has worked very well, if there is no certificate in the book in the vault.which i’d like to see, but I don’t see how.

    You’re never going to see the original in the vault just as you’ll never see your original birth certificate in your state archives. If they give out the original what would they made copies from?

  120. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: The guy really needs to update his resume.

    Speaking of out of date: There is a picture of him on a site (ORYR, I think) sitting in front of a CRT monitor with some image on it but in his hands are a piece of paper he is examining with a magnifying glass.

    The only thing missing was a deerstalker hat and a calabash pipe.

  121. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    scott e: I don’t know what to expect. but I have also said that, that it’s virtual has worked very well, if there is no certificate in the book in the vault.which i’d like to see, but I don’t see how.

    I’m sorry but I can’t figure out what you’re saying beyond the fact that you seem to acknowledge that you’re not going to get a look at the original birth document.

    What does “that it’s virtual has worked very well” mean?

  122. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    CarlOrcas: The only thing missing was a deerstalker hat and a calabash pipe.

    bada-bing

  123. avatar
    Jim July 27, 2013 at 11:47 am #

    CarlOrcas: I’m sorry but I can’t figure out what you’re saying beyond the fact that you seem to acknowledge that you’re not going to get a look at the original birth document.

    I’ll bet they never get a look at the original Hayes report that Zullo has in his possession either, but scott e will be one of the first ones to take Zullo at his word.

    Hey Doc, that might be a good article. The art of the Scam and how it relates to the CCP investigation.

  124. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    scott e: however irs agents carry guns.

    Only a handful of IRS employees carry weapons…..about 3,000 assigned to criminal investigations.

    Revenue officers…..the folks that handle most public contact do not carry weapons and do not have any law enforcement authority.

    Last story I saw said the total number of IRS employees is down to about 90,000 from way over 100,000 just a couple years ago.

  125. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 11:50 am #

    scott e: the book in the vault. which i’d like to see, but I don’t see how.

    Hawaii DOH Vital Records: (808) 586-4533

    Let us know what happens. We’ll be waiting.

  126. avatar
    Majority Will July 27, 2013 at 12:01 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I’m sorry but I can’t figure out what you’re saying beyond the fact that you seem to acknowledge that you’re not going to get a look at the original birth document.

    What does “that it’s virtual has worked very well” mean?

    It’s a secret code that can only be deciphered by reading it through bong water.

  127. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 12:11 pm #

    Majority Will: It’s a secret code that can only be deciphered by reading it through bong water.

    That makes sense….unfortunately.

  128. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 5:39 pm #

    misha marinsky: bada-bing

    Speaking of which………………

    I found the source of the photograph I was talking about. It’s a 1998 puff-piece in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/1998/01/20/features/story1.html

    Can’t wait to see Mr. Hayes on the stand after they frog march Mr. Obama out of the White House.

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Great find.

    CarlOrcas: I found the source of the photograph I was talking about. It’s a 1998 puff-piece in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

  130. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 6:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Great find.

    It will be interesting to see if this makes its way to birther sites and what the response is. Same with Commander Zullo and the posse.

  131. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 27, 2013 at 6:45 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Speaking of which………………

    I found the source of the photograph I was talking about. It’s a 1998 puff-piece in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/1998/01/20/features/story1.html

    Can’t wait to see Mr. Hayes on the stand after they frog march Mr. Obama out of the White House.

    This Noxious Neo-Nazi can read between the lines, but can he see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?


    …chances are he’ll blame his inability to do so on non-white, non-Christians.

  132. avatar
    donna July 27, 2013 at 7:36 pm #

    CarlOrcas:

    great find indeed – how wouldl reed’s accomplishments as a “graphologist”, as helping “lawyers determine what jurors are thinking”, and giving “employers more insight about job candidates” and helping “individuals determine the senders of anonymous mail” assist birthers in their quest to find that an internet downloaded PDF file of obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery”?

    can you imagine the Frye or Daubert hearing?

  133. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 27, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Scott E, after reading your response, I can tell the following:

    1. You don’t have much of a grievance against Obama the president or his policies, beyond some of his crew.

    2. You have a vague idea of the “government growing smaller,” but as we know that doesn’t happen, even under Reagan and both Bushes.

    3. You have a vague idea that you think “climate change” is a fake, in spite of massive evidence, including wild weather, to the contrary.

    4. You have a vague support of Obama for his Supreme Court picks, his efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, and his concern for the poor.

    5. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the birth certificate “issue” and the realities of the “birther” idiocies.

    It sounds like you don’t really know what’s going on, aren’t really opposed to Obama the man or the president, but you’re a “birther” nonetheless.

    So answer us plain? What is your grievance with President Obama? What is your grievance with the world as it is? What is the cause of your grievance with President Obama? What is your solution to all these problems? Haven’t you got better things to do with your life? No weaseling, no evasions, no rubbish about “unanswered questions” and “let’s see how this plays out.” The birther nonsense has been going on since 2008, and been shot down at every turn, either because of the utter incompetence of its advocates (Orly Taitz), the lunacy of their positions (Taitz and others), or the lies they are peddling (the whole lot).

    All “birtherism” can claim to being is a refuge for conspiracy theorists and confidence men. The former can grind their penknives, gain fame, and project their inner torments on others. The latter take advantage of the former to rake in money and gain undeserved attention and more money.

    It has done nothing to improve the body politic, addresses none of our chronic or acute issues, waste the time of our public servants responding to this idiocy, dishonors them as well, and only pollutes an already corroded public discourse. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, paranoia, racism, and threats of violent insurrection are the next-to-last stop on that train.

    We have enough problems in our country and our lives, everything from climate change and nuclear proliferation (to name two big ones) to childhood obesity (an under-reported and under-addressed issue with serious implications for our nation’s future), and these need to be addressed by people “reasoning together” to find solutions that work, not through shrill, harsh, abrasive, divisive rhetoric designed to rake in money and win elections.

    That is why I object to “birthers.” They are the termites, maggots, silverfish, and cockroaches that eat away at our nation’s structure, in the name of ignoble and self-serving causes.

    Scott E, you are wasting your musical talent and intellect on this rubbish. Try community service. Give blood. I do. It makes me feel better and it saves lives.

  134. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Try community service. Give blood. I do. It makes me feel better and it saves lives.

    Since the stroke, I volunteer at an animal shelter.

  135. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    donna: can you imagine the Frye or Daubert hearing?

    Yes. Ugly and short.

  136. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 27, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: That is why I object to “birthers.” They are the termites, maggots, silverfish, and cockroaches that eat away at our nation’s structure, in the name of ignoble and self-serving causes.

    Also check out Doc’s Quote of the Day. This stuff cannot be ignored.

  137. avatar
    misha marinsky July 27, 2013 at 7:57 pm #

    CarlOrcas: This stuff cannot be ignored.

    That’s why I’m here.

  138. avatar
    Keith July 28, 2013 at 4:13 am #

    donna:
    CarlOrcas:

    great find indeed – how wouldl reed’s accomplishments as a “graphologist”, as helping “lawyers determine what jurors are thinking”, and giving “employers more insight about job candidates” and helping “individuals determine the senders of anonymous mail” assist birthers in their quest to find that an internet downloaded PDF file of obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery”?

    can you imagine the Frye or Daubert hearing?

    Indeed.

    The article says he claims to be a member of associations relevant to Graphanalysis, but then most of his discussion has to do with Graphology.

    The two are entirely different things, graphanalysis having to do with validating handwriting by comparing known documents with uncertain documents; and graphology being psuedo-scientific personality reading.

    He did his “coursework” by correspondence which brings to mind another notorious birther. I wonder if it is fair to draw an inference about his competence in that.

    I don’t know what to make of this. Is he real or charlatan?

  139. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 7:06 am #

    Keith: then most of his discussion has to do with Graphology… Is he real or charlatan?

    Charlatan.

  140. avatar
    Keith July 28, 2013 at 9:29 am #

    misha marinsky: Charlatan.

    FYI: it was a rhetorical question 😉

  141. avatar
    scott e July 28, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    Kiwiwriter:
    Scott E, after reading your response, I can tell the following:

    1. You don’t have much of a grievance against Obama the president or his policies, beyond some of his crew.

    2. You have a vague idea of the “government growing smaller,” but as we know that doesn’t happen, even under Reagan and both Bushes.

    3. You have a vague idea that you think “climate change” is a fake, in spite of massive evidence, including wild weather, to the contrary.

    4. You have a vague support of Obama for his Supreme Court picks, his efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, and his concern for the poor.

    5. You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the birth certificate “issue” and the realities of the “birther” idiocies.

    It sounds like you don’t really know what’s going on, aren’t really opposed to Obama the man or the president, but you’re a “birther” nonetheless.

    So answer us plain? What is your grievance with President Obama? What is your grievance with the world as it is? What is the cause of your grievance with President Obama? What is your solution to all these problems? Haven’t you got better things to do with your life? No weaseling, no evasions, no rubbish about “unanswered questions” and “let’s see how this plays out.” The birther nonsense has been going on since 2008, and been shot down at every turn, either because of the utter incompetence of its advocates (Orly Taitz), the lunacy of their positions (Taitz and others), or the lies they are peddling (the whole lot).

    All “birtherism” can claim to being is a refuge for conspiracy theorists and confidence men. The former can grind their penknives, gain fame, and project their inner torments on others. The latter take advantage of the former to rake in money and gain undeserved attention and more money.

    It has done nothing to improve the body politic, addresses none of our chronic or acute issues, waste the time of our public servants responding to this idiocy, dishonors them as well, and only pollutes an already corroded public discourse. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, paranoia, racism, and threats of violent insurrection are the next-to-last stop on that train.

    We have enough problems in our country and our lives, everything from climate change and nuclear proliferation (to name two big ones) to childhood obesity (an under-reported and under-addressed issue with serious implications for our nation’s future), and these need to be addressed by people “reasoning together” to find solutions that work, not through shrill, harsh, abrasive, divisive rhetoric designed to rake in money and win elections.

    That is why I object to “birthers.” They are the termites, maggots, silverfish, and cockroaches that eat away at our nation’s structure, in the name of ignoble and self-serving causes.

    Scott E, you are wasting your musical talent and intellect on this rubbish. Try community service. Give blood. I do. It makes me feel better and it saves lives.

    *******

    thanks for the write up. getting heavy into policy and world views with you ? I don’t think so, not here. remember I have a different set of standards and rules to comply with when posting here.

    i’m glad this caper has international appeal though. I try to give blood every 57 days, I have for years and years. thanks for that too. there is quite a shortage going on now. I get appeals everyday.

    I would bet the farm that I know more about this issue, than do you. also, that I know, and talk regularly than more of the key players than you.

    your approval of me , as with most of the folks here is inconsequential

    I’ll take care of budgeting my time, you can too. all the best KW.

  142. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 28, 2013 at 10:58 am #

    Keith: don’t know what to make of this. Is he real or charlatan?

    Until his “report” sees the light of day I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he was incredibly naive to get involved with Zullo.

    That said….nothing in what we know about him, his training or experience, gives me confidence that he will be saying anything worthwhile.

  143. avatar
    Daniel July 28, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    scott e:
    I would bet the farm that I know more about this issue, than do you. also, that I know, and talk regularly than more of the key players than you.

    your approval of me , as with most of the folks here is inconsequential

    I’ll take care of budgeting my time, you can too. all the best KW.

    I’ll take that bet. I have a farm. What’s your stake?

    Of course there’s a few questions to resolve first….

    1. How do you define what is a “key player” in a delusion?

    2. How can I be assured of your honesty? You’re a birther, so you’re dishonest by definition.

  144. avatar
    misha marinsky July 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm #

    Keith: FYI: it was a rhetorical question

    Oops.

  145. avatar
    scott e July 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm #

    Daniel: I’ll take that bet. I have a farm. What’s your stake?

    Of course there’s a few questions to resolve first….

    1. How do you define what is a “key player” in a delusion?

    notable person.

    2. How can I be assured of your honesty? You’re a birther, so you’re dishonest by definition.

    you can’t

    that’s a two way street. that’s why there are forums like this, so we can speculate about what information we have to work with. by definition that’s what makes us all laymen and women.

    that the object of attention is virtual, has worked very well so far, for Obama et al.

  146. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

    scott e: thanks for the write up. getting heavy into policy and world views with you ? I don’t think so, not here. remember I have a different set of standards and rules to comply with when posting here.

    i’m glad this caper has international appeal though. I try to give blood every 57 days, I have for years and years. thanks for that too. there is quite a shortage going on now. I get appeals everyday.

    I would bet the farm that I know more about this issue, than do you. also, that I know, and talk regularly than more of the key players than you.

    your approval of me , as with most of the folks here is inconsequential

    I’ll take care of budgeting my time, you can too. all the best KW.

    Good for you on giving blood.

    But saying that I’m ignorant, as usual, does NOT answer the question.

    Nor do you know anything about my life. Saying that you “know more of the key players” is pretty hilarious…are you hanging out with Zullo, Taitz, and Fitzpatrick at the Bull & Finch every night?

    You do NOT answer questions.

    You merely come here to troll.

    I think your penknife to grind against Obama is the basic one…not the contents of his birth certificate…but the melanin content of his skin.

  147. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 28, 2013 at 5:25 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Good for you on giving blood.

    But saying that I’m ignorant, as usual, does NOT answer the question.

    Nor do you know anything about my life. Saying that you “know more of the key players” is pretty hilarious…are you hanging out with Zullo, Taitz, and Fitzpatrick at the Bull & Finch every night?

    You do NOT answer questions.

    You merely come here to troll.

    I think your penknife to grind against Obama is the basic one…not the contents of his birth certificate…but the melanin content of his skin.

    This is the part where Scott comes back with the birther refrain of “But i have black friends” or that he would have voted for Herman Cain or Alan west when he knows not in a hundred years would the repulicans nominate them so he would never have to actually vote or support them.

  148. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 28, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: This is the part where Scott comes back with the birther refrain of “But i have black friends” or that he would have voted for Herman Cain or Alan west when he knows not in a hundred years would the repulicans nominate them so he would never have to actually vote or support them.

    Yeah, but Scott E is a “Gingrich man,” so I don’t think he’d have backed Cain, West, or Keyes, anyway.

    On the other hand, he’s fine with backing a man who divorces his caner-ridden wife on her hospital bed, and shuts down the US government in a fit of pique over his seating on an official flight to a state funeral.

  149. avatar
    Daniel July 28, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

    scott e: 1. How do you define what is a “key player” in a delusion?

    notable person.

    And what makes a person notable?

    Expertise?
    Losing over 200 court challenges and winning ZERO pretty much removes any reasonable label of expertise from Zullo, Corsi, and the rest of the birther troupe. If that weren’t enough the fact that every court, every credentialed Constitutional expert, the Congress of the United States, the research branch of the Library of Congress all disagree with them puts the rest of the nails in the coffin. So if it’s expertise that makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    Popularity?
    Well considering that the average person in America doesn’t know any of their names, or care about this faux “issue”, or even are aware that there are still birthers out there, and considering that despite the best efforts of every one of the birthers all over the country, Obama still won two elections, handily, and considering that the most successful of the birther rallies for five years running were still complete flops, with attendees numbering in the dozen (lol), and most birther rallies are cancelled due to lack of interest… Well if popularity is what makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    Success or Effect?
    Well considering that you birthers have been putting your all into this delusion for five years now, and all you managed to do is rack up an impressive record of over 200 failures in court, with ZERO wins, and despite all your best efforts you can’t get anyone of importance to listen to you, and considering there’s fewer of you all the time…. Well if success and effect is what makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    So if they cannot, by definition, be notable, then how is it that they can be “key players”, except perhaps to be the key players in the most pathetic failure of the century?

    scott e:
    2. How can I be assured of your honesty? You’re a birther, so you’re dishonest by definition.

    you can’t

    So then you admit that your offer to “bet the farm” was spurious and disingenuous?

    That’s OK, none of us are surprised.

  150. avatar
    Daniel July 28, 2013 at 7:55 pm #

    Kiwiwriter: Good for you on giving blood.

    Assuming he actually did.

    Maybe he gave blood while building the studio for Phish? 😉

  151. avatar
    Suranis July 29, 2013 at 3:01 am #

    If his report was anything definitive Zullo the clown would have headed to the New York times with it. Since they are not bothering to release it its a safe bet that it proves sod and all.

    Lets look at the guys credentials anyway. All he would be able to look at with his “expertise” is the handwritten parts, namely the doctors and the mothers signature, and possibly Alvin Onaka’s signature which is probably an official stamp.

    The moms sig was broken into 2 different layers and into 2 different resolutions by the Compression process. That’s fairly obvious. So any analysis of that is worthless as “unham” has been altered into a new resolution by the computer compression. They can’t argue that “Stanely Ann D” has been altered as its on the background layer and they keep saying that its the layers that were altered. So we have to look for another woman named Stanely Ann and who’s surname starts with D in Hawaii. Good Luck.

    The doctor is dead, but we have lots of examples of his sig around I’m sure (which no doubt this expert failed to look for) and Hawaii has certified Onaka’s sig as genuine, so the only way you could challenge that is a court case in Hawaii. I’m sure that the Hawaii DOH would relish getting Zullo on the stand.

    CarlOrcas: Until his “report” sees the light of day I will give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he was incredibly naive to get involved with Zullo.

    That said….nothing in what we know about him, his training or experience, gives me confidence that he will be saying anything worthwhile.

  152. avatar
    The Magic M July 29, 2013 at 4:52 am #

    donna: how wouldl reed’s accomplishments as a “graphologist”, as helping “lawyers determine what jurors are thinking”, and giving “employers more insight about job candidates” and helping “individuals determine the senders of anonymous mail” assist birthers in their quest to find that an internet downloaded PDF file of obama’s birth certificate is a “forgery”?

    “The doctor’s signature shows typical signs of the type of stress you’re under while being threatened. Therefore he signed the document under pressure, therefore its contents cannot be correct. Plus, the wordings of the verifications from Hawaii show the writer’s intent to actually say the opposite, therefore all verifications are lies.” Or something.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Zullo has found himself a professional version of Butterdezillion.

  153. avatar
    The Magic M July 29, 2013 at 4:58 am #

    Actual Hayes quote from the article:

    “If you find something negative in your writing, keep in mind that a trait might manifest itself in a good or bad way.

    Sounds like “You will make a very important decision today.” (Play Russian Roulette? Dump my girlfriend? Stop watching Fox?) types of predictions – astrology!

  154. avatar
    scott e July 29, 2013 at 10:59 am #

    Daniel: And what makes a person notable?

    Expertise?
    Losing over 200 court challenges and winning ZERO pretty much removes any reasonable label of expertise from Zullo, Corsi, and the rest of the birther troupe. If that weren’t enough the fact that every court, every credentialed Constitutional expert, the Congress of the United States, the research branch of the Library of Congress all disagree with them puts the rest of the nails in the coffin. So if it’s expertise that makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    Popularity?
    Well considering that the average person in America doesn’t know any of their names, or care about this faux “issue”, or even are aware that there are still birthers out there, and considering that despite the best efforts of every one of the birthers all over the country, Obama still won two elections, handily, and considering that the most successful of the birther rallies for five years running were still complete flops, with attendees numbering in the dozen (lol), and most birther rallies are cancelled due to lack of interest…Well if popularity is what makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    Success or Effect?
    Well considering that you birthers have been putting your all into this delusion for five years now, and all you managed to do is rack up an impressive record of over 200 failures in court, with ZERO wins, and despite all your best efforts you can’t get anyone of importance to listen to you, and considering there’s fewer of you all the time…. Well if success and effect is what makes one a notable person, the ones you point to, are simply not.

    So if they cannot, by definition, be notable, then how is it that they can be “key players”, except perhaps to be the key players in the most pathetic failure of the century?

    So then you admit that your offer to “bet the farm” was spurious and disingenuous?

    That’s OK, none of us are surprised.

    me neither.

  155. avatar
    scott e July 29, 2013 at 11:03 am #

    Kiwiwriter: Yeah, but Scott E is a “Gingrich man,” so I don’t think he’d have backed Cain, West, or Keyes, anyway.

    On the other hand, he’s fine with backing a man who divorces his caner-ridden wife on her hospital bed, and shuts down the US government in a fit of pique over his seating on an official flight to a state funeral.

    this is what you guys do, assume and prejudge.

    if you look at someone a certain way and think they should think a certain way because of race colour or religion, then you are the ones with the problem.

    you do this without knowing the person.

  156. avatar
    Kiwiwriter July 29, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    scott e: this is what you guys do, assume and prejudge.

    if you look at someone a certain way and think they should think a certain way because of race colour or religion, then you are the ones with the problem.

    you do this without knowing the person.

    As are you, with your suggestion that my views on the Obama situation come from “overseas.” You have no idea where I live.

    Another point…we don’t have to “assume and prejudge” you at this point. We’ve seen more than enough of your outpourings to know where you stand…

    …and fail to stand.

    You still haven’t told us what your real grievance with President Obama is, merely attacked us. Still haven’t addressed our points, answered our questions, or taken accountability and responsibility for your positions or offered your solutions.

    After a year or so of reading your rubbish, it’s pretty clear to me that this is a mix of trolling and a game to you…you’re just having fun prodding people with an electronic stick and making them jump around.

  157. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 29, 2013 at 12:37 pm #

    scott e: this is what you guys do, assume and prejudge.if you look at someone a certain way and think they should think a certain way because of race colour or religion, then you are the ones with the problem.you do this without knowing the person.

    Stop whining Scott you’ve laid your motives pretty bare for a while now.

  158. avatar
    sfjeff July 29, 2013 at 1:04 pm #

    scott e: this is what you guys do, assume and prejudge.
    if you look at someone a certain way and think they should think a certain way because of race colour or religion, then you are the ones with the problem.
    you do this without knowing the person.

    I haven’t assumed anything about you Scott- I have judged you based upon the evidence.

    As I said before

    Scott- you became a Birther I believe in 2011? So you were a big time birther during the last Presidential election.

    You have- in wierd and disconnected ways- demanded that Barack Obama be ‘vetted’ more.

    So where in the PF forums- where you have been posting since 2011- did you make the same demands of Mitt Romney?

    This is why I call this claim of yours dishonest- and that is the politest way I can say it. I have challenged you on this before.

    If you really believed that all candidates should be vetted equally- where are your dozens if not hundreds of threads questioning Mitt Romney’s eligibility?

    You have a whole website devoted to Birtherism- where did you raise concerns about Mitt there?

    Please Scott- stop pretending- stop claiming you want all candidates vetted equally.

    You had your opportunity to show you believed that in 2012- and you only questioned one candidate- obsessively.

    I judge you based upon the way you discriminated against Barack Obama.

    I say discriminated, because you never asked for the same information for Mitt Romney.

    I judge you based upon the evidence you provide in your posts- not by assumptions of who you.

  159. avatar
    misha marinsky July 29, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    scott e: if you look at someone a certain way and think they should think a certain way because of race colour or religion

    “scott e” is from Canada. Who knows where he’s writing from. He’s doing this to antagonize us.

  160. avatar
    Suranis July 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

    Scott is not surprised that Scott will not admit that Scott’s offer to “bet the farm” was spurious and disingenuous. Maybe Scott knows scott’s motives really well

    scott e:

    So then you admit that your offer to “bet the farm” was spurious and disingenuous?

    That’s OK, none of us are surprised.

    me neither.

  161. avatar
    Majority Will July 29, 2013 at 2:43 pm #

    Suranis:
    Scott is not surprised that Scott will not admit that Scott’s offer to “bet the farm” was spurious and disingenuous. Maybe Scott knows scott’s motives really well

    me neither.

    Jimmy: “You know, Jimmy is pretty sweet on you.”

    Elaine: “Aaaaaahhh! He is?!”

    Jimmy: “Oh yeah! Jimmy’s been watching you. You’re just Jimmy’s type.”

    Elaine: “Aaaaaahhh! Really?

  162. avatar
    Rickey July 29, 2013 at 10:23 pm #

    The open thread is closed so i’ll mention here that I just ready that the judge in the Bradley Manning case is none other than Denise Lind. She is supposed to hand down her verdict tomorrow.

  163. avatar
    scott e July 31, 2013 at 11:10 am #

    misha marinsky: “scott e” is from Canada. Who knows where he’s writing from. He’s doing this to antagonize us.

    not from Canada, definitely here to plant some seeds.

  164. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater July 31, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    scott e: definitely here to plant some seeds.

    Enough about what you do with your downtime scott.

  165. avatar
    misha marinsky July 31, 2013 at 2:38 pm #

    scott e: not from Canada

    Then why do you use British English?

  166. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 31, 2013 at 7:03 pm #

    scott e: not from Canada, definitely here to plant some seeds.

    If your understanding of gardening is as poor as everything else, you’ll probably end up planting them in concrete.