Obama's Birth Certificate faked?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

41% of Republicans responded recently to a poll by saying Obama is a Muslim. I consider that a very strong sign of prejudicial thinking towards Obama.

41% of Republicans polled is very significant.

Since when is Muslim a race? And how is speculating about one's religion to be equated with prejudice? If that were the case, then a lot of people are prejudiced against Christians as well as the full gamut of religions. Is prejudice really the word you intended?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I would agree that the preponderance of evidence is that he was born there. However....

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.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

I know you understand that forensic analysis will NEVER PROVE that any single piece of information is incorrect.

Why are you pretending otherwise, and acting like Nick Naylor in "Thank you for Smoking"?

The best that forensic analysis would ever do would be to prove exactly what we already know. That the PDF is not the original document, it is a scan.

Forensic analysis will NEVER PROVE that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

The matter is already settled. All that is left is cleaning up the stupid,.

I am referring to forensic analysis of the paper that was scanned, as well as the binder containing it, not the PDF. In the absence of the paper, we can critically examine the thing they provided, and any other bit of information that is interesting.

I never heard of Nick Naylor in "Thank you for Smoking". Was it any good?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Since when is Muslim a race? And how is speculating about one's religion to be equated with prejudice? If that were the case, then a lot of people are prejudiced against Christians as well as the full gamut of religions. Is prejudice really the word you intended?

If you don't see the relationship between racial and religious prejudices, you should have your head examined. I do not find it difficult at all to make the leap that people who openly engage in anti-Muslim prejudice would also be closet racists. I find that truth rather self-evident.

Prejudice is exactly the word when false accusations of status are used as a slur. This is a status slur, done specifically to inflame anti-Muslim prejudice against Obama.

Are you denying the existence of anti-Muslim prejudice?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

"like a junkyard dog" - yeah, that's not too racist.

The entire matter was settled 3 years ago, when the state of Hawaii certified his birth certificate. That's been good enough for every other presidential candidate, democrat and republican alike. Even Mike Dukakis, the "son of Greek immigrants", was not questioned after his citizenship was certified, but like all the others, he was a white european, too. Why is Obama's situation different? Hmmm, let me see......

As for me, I am not familiar with the situation Michael Dukakis faced. In 1988 I didn't pay that close attention to the election. I didn't care for Bush, I didn't care for Dukakis. I voted for what I thought was the lesser of two evils. That is a common approach used by many even today.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by scottwww

If there is case law that what you say is true, what are the references?

This is the commonly accepted statement of the law as it pertains to citizenship of minors, and it's consistent with Obama's eligibility status. If you suspect it is not true, prove it.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I am referring to forensic analysis of the paper that was scanned, as well as the binder containing it, not the PDF. In the absence of the paper, we can critically examine the thing they provided, and any other bit of information that is interesting.

You are NOT doing any forensic analysis of the CONTENT!!!

For god's sake, will you answer this once and for all:

What CONTENT of this document could forensic analysis EVER prove to be incorrect?

[scottwww]

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.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

If you don't see the relationship between racial and religious prejudices, you should have your head examined. I do not find it difficult at all to make the leap that people who openly engage in anti-Muslim prejudice would also be closet racists. I find that truth rather self-evident.

Prejudice is exactly the word when false accusations of status are used as a slur. This is a status slur, done specifically to inflame anti-Muslim prejudice against Obama.

Are you denying the existence of anti-Muslim prejudice?

I don't see how it even has anything to do with Muslim. And no, I don't "see the relationship between racial and religious prejudices". Maybe you could explain, but probably best in another thread. There has to be a thread for that more appropriate than this one.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

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.

They have all been provided, and confirmed as valid many times.

Your inability to believe them without personally examining them in your own hands is YOUR personality disorder. It is YOUR inability to rationally deal with reality.

This is just like it was YOU that was the problem when you didn't believe Obama got Osama Bin Laden. This is no different.


For god's sake, will you answer this once and for all:

What CONTENT of this document does forensic analysis prove to be incorrect?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

This is the commonly accepted statement of the law as it pertains to citizenship of minors, and it's consistent with Obama's eligibility status. If you suspect it is not true, prove it.

You say it is a statement of the law. What law, and what interpretation?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I don't see how it even has anything to do with Muslim. And no, I don't "see the relationship between racial and religious prejudices". Maybe you could explain

So you are denying that anti-Muslim prejudicial hatred exists?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

You are NOT doing any forensic analysis of the CONTENT!!!

For god's sake, will you answer this once and for all:

What CONTENT of this document could forensic analysis EVER prove to be incorrect?

By CONTENT, I assume you are referring to the data, such as the names, signatures, dates, etc. I am not disputing the data. It is probably the data that would be seen when examined. Yet I do not know that to be the case as the scan provided by Obama is so full of anomalies. Nothing would be better proof than a forensic examination of the document that is claimed to be the authentic and original birth record. If Obama wanted this to end, it should be relatively easier and more satisfying for everyone than the approach he has taken for years.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

By CONTENT, I assume you are referring to the data, such as the names, signatures, dates, etc. I am not disputing the data. .

Then I've proven my case. You've just admitted that further examination of the PDF will never result in any challenge of the data, including the location of Obama's birth.

You've proven your own futility and pointlessness in continuing to blather on about this. Yet you won't stop anyways. Again, you are proving your own character flaws, not anything about Obama.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Nothing would be better proof than a forensic examination of the document that is claimed to be the authentic and original birth record.

Then why are you going on and on about the PDF instead?

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

You say it is a statement of the law. What law, and what interpretation?

If you are provided the law, will you once and for all ACCEPT the law? This is a yes or no question. You have a 100% failure rate so far at answering yes or no questions.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

They have all been provided, and confirmed as valid many times.

Oh really? What judge has examined the paper document? What forensic analysis has been done?

Originally Posted by 11Series

Your inability to believe them without personally examining them in your own hands is YOUR personality disorder. It is YOUR inability to rationally deal with reality.

This is just like it was YOU that was the problem when you didn't believe Obama got Osama Bin Laden. This is no different.

I don't need to see the document. I would like forensic experts to see it. And if it were on evidence, then a judge to have a full hearing.

When/where did I not believe Osama Bin Laden had not been "got"? BTW: It wasn't Obama who did it. It was the Seal team in a mission approved by whatever military commanders do that, and also the president. It was Obama's duty to take the heat for striking within Pakistan without Pakistani approval. And I don't argue the matter except that we need to GTFO of the Middle East and other places.

Originally Posted by 11Series

For god's sake, will you answer this once and for all:

What CONTENT of this document does forensic analysis prove to be incorrect?

Nobody knows. The analysis hasn't been done on the paper document.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by 11Series

So you are denying that anti-Muslim prejudicial hatred exists?

Sure. There is plenty of that out there. There are plenty who hate Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc. The part that didn't click for me was the linkage of race and religion the way you worded it. What was that?

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by scottwww

You say it is a statement of the law. What law, and what interpretation?

For the last time, look it up! I'm not your free legal servant. You are the one who is questioning this accepted policy which is consistent with the conclusions reached in this issue.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by scottwww

By CONTENT, I assume you are referring to the data, such as the names, signatures, dates, etc. I am not disputing the data. It is probably the data that would be seen when examined. Yet I do not know that to be the case as the scan provided by Obama is so full of anomalies. Nothing would be better proof than a forensic examination of the document that is claimed to be the authentic and original birth record. If Obama wanted this to end, it should be relatively easier and more satisfying for everyone than the approach he has taken for years.

Originally Posted by 11Series

Then I've proven my case. You've just admitted that further examination of the PDF will never result in any challenge of the data, including the location of Obama's birth.

You've proven your own futility and pointlessness in continuing to blather on about this. Yet you won't stop anyways. Again, you are proving your own character flaws, not anything about Obama.

I say that is probably the same data because I think Obama is doing this on purpose for political gain. When he sees an opportunity to use it, maybe he will allow the forensic analysis. Perhaps his tactics will backfire.

Another potential is that the reworking of the document as it appears in the PDF may be hiding a discrepancy in the data. If there is something to hide, then forensic analysis will never take place.

I think he was born in Hawaii. If it is true he was born in Hawaii, then what is he hiding? He is like the guy that pulls up to the INS check point and will roll down his window only one inch, then not answer the question that will move him along in under one minute. He may be within his rights, but it sure provokes a fight. That fight often doesn't end well.

I would rather favor the rights of the guy at the checkpoint than the guy who acts as the president of the world.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

For the last time, look it up! I'm not your free legal servant. You are the one who is questioning this accepted policy which is consistent with the conclusions reached in this issue.

I don't think there has been any judgement on Obama's case. Weren't cases simply dismissed for lack of standing? Rather a cop-out in my opinion.

[11Series]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Sure. There is plenty of that out there. There are plenty who hate Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc. The part that didn't click for me was the linkage of race and religion the way you worded it. What was that?

The relationship between anti-Muslim prejudice and racism can be best illustrated by a commonly used anti-Muslim pejorative:

Sand N!gger.

The blending of the lines between anti-black/dark skinned racism and anti-Muslim prejudice is abundantly clear in this pejorative.

The majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world are non-white, and the history of anti-Muslim imagery being dominated with oversized non-white ethnic features, and dark skinned images further blurs the lines between religious and racial prejudice.

Do you understand the connection between racism and religious prejudice by people who harbor BOTH racial AND religious prejudice when they use the pejorative "Sand N!gger"?