2600 in 2006

This is a classic losers debate move. If he entertains this crap, then he lends credence to it. Losing position. Better to let the facts stand, and the law stand behind them, and let people say what they will.

 

Someone claims to have a rare proto that nobody's ever seen. He shows some people alleged screen shots, and he shows other people a ROM cartridge but doesn't actually let them see it do anything. After awhile, people start to wonder about whether the guy is full of it.

 

Which action by him would lend more credence to his naysayers: setting up a video of him actually playing the game, or stomping his feet and saying he's under no obligation to show it to anyone--people saw the screenshots, and saw the board, and if that's not good enough for them, tough.

 

In cases where one speaks truth, but one doesn't have good solid evidence to back it up, it may be better to ignore naysayers than to try to respond. If, for example, Barack had claimed to have been born in a town whose birth records were destroyed in a fire in 1972, he might legitimately not have records to show his eligibility even if he was, in fact, eligible. On the other hand, unless Barack has been lying about his past, there should be no difficulty with him proving his eligibility in such a fashion as to stomp out 99.44% of the detractors.

 

I will not believe that Barack committed a hoax that would require co-conspirators throughout numerous levels of government. That he might commit a hoax that would require only a handful of personally-chosen co-conspirators (none of whom hold official positions) plus a major dose of chutzpah, however, would seem more plausible.

 

When evaluating conspiracy theories, I try to determine what exactly I would have to believe in order to believe the theory true. In the case of most conspiracy theories, I find that there are some things that simply are not plausible. Here, I don't.

 

That an official's statement that electronic copy of a document looks genuine would be made without comparing the document against the records on file (to which the official may not have access). Likely.

 

That someone of moderate skill could electronically alter a scanned document to say whatever he wanted, and have the electronic copy pass muster with a state official who was examining it unofficially. Likely.

 

That there would be ways for people to have birth records on file in Hawaii without having been born there. Plausible.

 

That there exist people who are not eligible for office, but would like to run anyway. Certain.

 

That some people are skilled at bluffing their way through almost anything. Certain.

 

That some people who are not eligible for office, but would like to run anyway, are also very skilled at bluffing. Plausible.

 

That Barack's party might take him at his word about eligibility, at least early on. Plausible.

 

That few people would have a legitimate basis to access Barack's birth records before the primary. Likely.

 

That officials might feel pressure not to call attention to any problems with the eligibility of a candidate who had won the primary, for fear of having riots on his head. Likely that they would feel pressure; plausible that they might accede to it.

 

Etc. etc.

 

I then proceed with the null hypothesis (what would I have to believe for the theory not to be true). That Barack Obama would rather continue his bluff than show his goods would be the expected behavior for a fraud, and not the expected behavior for an honest man.

 

That's my thought process. In what way is it unreasonable? When looking at most conspiracy theories, the thought process ends pretty quickly when I find something that just plain doesn't work. Here, however, I don't. The whole chain of events necessary for an ineligible Barack Obama to have gotten where he is would not have required a conspiracy involving any officials beyond a general unwillingness to blow the whistle, and I come across nothing more implausible than the notion that a candidate wouldn't have gotten someone to make a clear and unequivocal statement that Barack is a natural-born citizen, rather than saying that he shall not be challenged.

 

 

 

BTW, if the court were to rule that Barack Obama could not be sworn in until he was proven eligible, there wouldn't be a Constitutional crisis. At worst, he's told that he can become President as soon as he demonstrates eligibility; Biden would fill in the interim. Any delay in Barack becoming President would be entirely under his control.

I will entertain no more false comparisons.

 

Peace my friend. Think hard about what I wrote to you.

To be honest, Obama's citizenship status is just the foothill of the mountain.

 

I am an Obama campaign contributor... let me explain. I contributed $10 to the campaign, but I did not open my wallet for any political reason. I did it because I was curious about a very disturbing word on the steet about the nature of the campaign fundraising apparatus. The ugly fact is that Obama's webroots funding was operated without even the most basic form of credit-card verification. The campaign failed to employ the most elementary forms of ccv,to the extent that any name could be supplied with any validated card. When I say "failed to employ" I mean "actively avoided", since even credit card sales for coffee cups bearing the president's likeness employed this eponymous security measure.

 

I entered my name as Alexander Hamilton, in honor of my numerical contribution. It was, of course, promptly pocketed. Alex would likely be as worried as I am.