Originally Posted by 11Series
There is no "However" here. There is just evidence. Evidence you have seen, you understand is binding, and you know is way beyond sufficient. Yet you still wallow in your "However's".
I can't see how your motivation to continue bring up more "However's" is anything but specifically designed to inflame prejudicial hatred.
Because we are way past the point of forensic analysis having ANY IMPACT AT ALL on the preponderance of evidence. It has absolutely zero impact, as illustrated here:
JUDGE: Mr. Obama, what proof do you have of your location of birth?
OBAMA: Here you go Judge, here are all the lawful documents:
1) Computer generated Certificate of Live Birth with raised seal.
2) Testimony of the Republican Gov. that it is true and valid.
3) Photocopy of the paper Certificate of Live Birth with state stamp
4) Letter from State of Hawaii validating it is a true copy.
JUDGE: These are all legally admissible and binding documents. You've met your burden 4 times over what any court would require. What do you have Mr. Birthtard?
DUMB-F**K BIRTHTARD: If you look here at this unofficial PDF scan, you can see that there are artifacts from the scanning process....
JUDGE: Unofficial PDF scan? WTF are you talking about? That isn't admissible. Don't you understand the difference between an original document and a scan that was produced to be quickly put on the internet in the middle of a news cycle? Get the F*** out before I put you in jail.
DUMB-F**K BIRTHTARD: But I got this from some random person on the internet, isn't that the same as evidence that came directly from the State of Hawaii??
JUDGE: That does it. Bailiff, wack his pee-pee.
The judge might just ask to see the original document. I certainly would. It would go a long way toward settling the matter. Then we can move on to the questions that have far-reaching impact beyond one President's term in office.