Hawaii's New Governor Takes Up the Fight Against Birthers

NigelTufnel said:
Your doubts are groundless. The fact that the entity in possession of the document produced a typewritten copy which referenced this particular statute shows that the statute does indeed apply. And for the FRE, such a copy is perfectly kosher.


Edit: By the by, which particular contents of Obama's birth certificate are in question? You haven't answered that one.
Click to expand...

i got it, you're just going to hack away and keep pretending i haven't answered your questions because you're to dishonest to admit you're wrong and you're going to dishonestly claim the FRE allows type written in the form of the COLB which is absolutely false as it does not truly reflect all information in the original you fucking idiot

yawn
 
Beefy said:
Nothing really. I mean sure, seeing the original would reiterate what we already know I guess. :dunno:

I'm not worried like you birthers. :D
Click to expand...

You and the rest of the Obamamites seem to be afraid of it being shown.
I wonder what you're afraid will be revealed?
 
Yurt said:
i got it, you're just going to hack away and keep pretending i haven't answered your questions because you're to dishonest to admit you're wrong and you're going to dishonestly claim the FRE allows type written in the form of the COLB which is absolutely false as it does not truly reflect all information in the original you fucking idiot

yawn
Click to expand...


You haven't answered which contents are in dispute. Again, I thought the dispute concerned whether Obama was born in Hawaii. You tell me the dispute concerns the contents of his birth certificate. Well, which contents?

And all I claimed about the released document is that it satisfies FRE 1005, which it certainly does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top