Re: Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

" What I *won't* entertain are persistent, silly accusations that linger
*after* sufficient evidence has been provided. (You may say it isn't the
"best evidence," or whatever, but it was perfectly legitimate, legal, and
independently corroborated. In other words, it was good enough for everyone
*except* the birthers.)"

I would point out that the matter actually never been legally tested, but
that is irrelevant.  The fact remains that the evidence produced had
legitimate questions about it so those questions were not unreasonable.
That YOU find the earlier evidence persuasive is fine, but it does not mean
you should shout down people who do not.

And more than likely you felt the entire question was irrelevant in the
first place....


" Indeed, but it's also a fact that doesn't matter to *anyone* but the
people who didn't want him in office, which is my point. It didn't matter to
employers, universities, state or federal agencies, etc."

Dude.....the only reason it matters that there is clear constitutional
requirement for being president.  As we keep pointing out, there is not for
college or any of the others.  That is yet another strawman.

" At least when weighed against the mere supposition that he's hiding
something"

But even there you admit he was hiding it?

" Heh. I didn't wonder because I was and continued to be convinced that he
didn't feel it was very Presidential to stoop to the level of rebutting
baseless accusations.  ;)"

But he was a constitutional professor, so shouldn’t he of all people
recognize the need to ensure compliance and to be above reproach.  Also, he
promised transparency, so where does his lie there tie in? 

" legal"

I would point out that his legitimacy was never legally determined in any
sense.  No candidate has a formal legal process.  No court ever ruled he was
eligible.  The lawsuits were dismissed because of lack of standing.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of pcg
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:37 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding...

> (For Mike, that's what I meant when I said the idea was "beyond the 
> pale." For anyone who's genuinely interested, there's at least enough 
> circumstantial evidence to consider the possibility, that's all.)<
>
> And that was my point you would understand how some might reach that 
> conclusion without having evidence to support it, (you not having 
> evidence, not those reaching the conclusion since you aren't 
> interested enough to investigate whether there is any evidence).  But 
> you refuse to entertain/understand any doubt someone else might have 
> about Obama's birthplace.

Perfectly fair, except that I *don't* refuse to entertain/understand any
doubt that someone has about Obama's birthplace. It's a legitimate (if odd)
question to pose, and I have no problem with that.

What I *won't* entertain are persistent, silly accusations that linger
*after* sufficient evidence has been provided. (You may say it isn't the
"best evidence," or whatever, but it was perfectly legitimate, legal, and
independently corroborated. In other words, it was good enough for everyone
*except* the birthers.)

If it were possible for someone to provide evidence that the birther
movement *wasn't* rooted in latent racial anxiety, and all relevant agencies
agreed that the evidence was legitimate, I would no longer be willing to
entertain the notion. (Of course, that's not possible, which is a shame.)
:P

> And has been pointed out previously your insistence that it was never 
> questioned in his earlier life is irrelevant.  He wasn't seeking the 
> presidency then.  It was questioned when he sought the presidency and 
> until yesterday he had refused to present the best evidence of his 
> claim that he was/is a US citizen.  The second clause of that previous 
> sentence is unassailable fact.

Indeed, but it's also a fact that doesn't matter to *anyone* but the people
who didn't want him in office, which is my point. It didn't matter to
employers, universities, state or federal agencies, etc.
Sure, you can start flinging any baseless accusation you want at a
Presidential candidate, but that doesn't mean anyone has to take your
accusations seriously, particularly after the accusations have been settled
and dismissed by everyone *except* the accusers.

> You can say all you want about how he shouldn't have had to and 
> whatever, quite frankly lame reason, he shouldn't have had to release 
> it but the unassailable fact still remains.

Great! Now that the best evidence *has* been released, what will be the
persistent "unassailable fact" going forward?

> The refusal to release the best evidence is "at least enough 
> circumstantial evidence to consider the possibility" that one of the 
> reasons he wouldn't release it was because it didn't exist and/or 
> there was a genuine issue as to his citizenship.

Agreed, definitely enough to consider the possibility. There are also
*other* likely explanations, which must be taken into consideration as well.
Given the previously-released legal documentation, as well as the
independent corroborations, newspaper birth notice, etc., it's fair to say
that the circumstantial evidence leaned *heavily* in favor of Obama's
natural born status. At least when weighed against the mere supposition that
he's hiding something.

> I never gave the matter much thought, so it never even rose the level 
> of doubt/trust for me.  I really didn't care.
> I was much more disappointed that the U.S. electorate fell for his 
> hopeychangey hooey than the possibility that someone not technically a 
> citizen got elected.  But, other people were concerned with it and 
> most likely on a partisan basis, but so what.  Politics and elections 
> are partisan things and both sides do whatever they can to elect their 
> guy and prevent the other's guy from getting elected.

Certainly, but we're supposed to at least pretend that we're disgusted by
mudslinging and lies.

> However with his continued refusal to release the document I can 
> understand why some might wonder what he was trying to hide or what 
> the big deal was that he couldn't just put it out there, even those 
> that never were birthers or gave much thought to this issue.  I didn't 
> wonder that because I was and continue to be convinced that he 
> believed not releasing the document was advantageous to him politically.

Heh. I didn't wonder because I was and continued to be convinced that he
didn't feel it was very Presidential to stoop to the level of rebutting
baseless accusations.  ;)

Your supposition is possible, of course, but as Adam Carolla pointed out, if
he was using the birther thing as a political strategy, it would have been
*much* more advantageous to let Trump (or whoever) ride that horse all the
way up to the election, and *then* drop the bomb on them. Releasing it this
early feels much more like trying to get it out of the way, rather than
maximizing it as a political move.

> Back to the point, that you can understand the accusations of 
> birther's being racist but not understand why people might wonder 
> about his refusal to release the best evidence exposes a double 
> standard, which I am lead to believe is based on partisanship.

I realize I'm repeating myself at this point, but the difference is that
there was existing, legal, independently corroborated, and external evidence
to rebut the birther theories. I don't really know how else to put it. The
demands for further, "best" evidence appeared to be transparent desperation,
and, as expected, turned out to be nothing more than a bunch of noisemaking.

--
-pcg
 [email protected]

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot