[eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics

JP Lacy lacyjp
Wed Oct 22 22:02:54 CDT 2008


You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder 
McCain is smart enough not to make this argument.

The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" 
invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: 
http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430

They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a 
conflict of interest: 
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. 
Don't go all in on that one.)



Old Strega wrote:
> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check.
>
> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem.   i thought you were capable of defending of arguments:
>
> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm
>
> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign....
>
> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. 
>
> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to 
>
> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. 
>
> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. 
>
> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. 
>
> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. 
>
> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." 
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>   
>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400
>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu
>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com
>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics
>>
>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you.
>>
>>
>> Old Strega wrote:
>>     
>>> you try to debate.  lose the debate.   now, losing proves your point.
>>>
>>> that's awesome.    those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid.   
>>>
>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth?
>>>
>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters.
>>>
>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice.
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400
>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu
>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com
>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics
>>>>
>>>> Group it: You're proving my point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Old Strega wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics.    you sound like irving kristol.   
>>>>>
>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy.   the fact check report.    lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy".    this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration.  there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts.  already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads.    believe is a scary campaign slogan word.   
>>>>>
>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults.    
>>>>>
>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama?
>>>>>
>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate?   why is the obama website dodging the berg case?
>>>>>
>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss?
>>>>>
>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration.   
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you.
>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> eDebate mailing list
>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you.
>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
> _________________________________________________________________
> Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive.
> http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008
>
>
>   




More information about the Mailman mailing list