In civil cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff for the same reasons I already explained... in civil cases the plaintiff presents the charge. In civil cases there ARE exceptions... rare exceptions such as insanity pleads. I don't see Obama pleading insanity to you?


Thank you Captain Obvious for letting me know what the issue is... LOL. As if everyone in the world doesn't already know. Even my dog knows. As for the burden of proof, that's something you need to do a little reading on... as soon as you can handle words with more that two syllables. Bottom line is YOU are the one issuing the charge, so YOU provide the proof. That's the way it works. Also, just a side note... If you want to at least give people the impression that you know what you are talking about try to control your anger and refrain from silly name calling. It's hard to take someone who calls Obama "Omaggot" as anything other than a child.


Nothing in your description changes the rules that I have already pointed out. You're just repeating the same thing without offering any legal language to support that argument. I'm sure that's how it works in your circles... say it over and over until it's true, but back in Kansas, the drab reality is that you are wrong. Plain and simple. You WISH the burden of proof was on him but useful idiot rule #1 - repeat until true, just doesn't work when your trying to convince someone who isn't stupid. I tell you what, why don't you link to some legal experts that echo your position, let the grownups talk about this?


No proof that it is either. What you and your band of morons are doing is trying to compensate for your failure to provide proof by telling us the defendant has to provide the proof. That just makes me laugh my ass off.


I'm not arguing the consequences of fraud, but how does that have anything to do with who carries the burden of proof? What I *did* notice is how you start off by arguing that this is a civil case, not a criminal case...
civil cases don't put people in jail. ;)


What difference does it make? You don't even know my name and you're actually asking me what law school I went to. LOL... Besides, we aren't talking about anything complicated here, the level of legal understanding required to recognize how ignorant you are is the basic stuff every citizen should know.

Clicking on an internet ad is bad? Because... it tracks and collects stuff that any of your other clicks on the internet don't already?

LOL - What does it matter anyway if... Oh, wait... aren't you using anonymous browsing? See, if you liked Obama he would have sent you the memo telling you to use anonymous browsing to avoid his new tracking system that he's using to zero in on conservatives.

...you should probably check outside... there might be drones.

In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There is a reason for that rule. Without prosecution there is no charge. Without charge there is no reason for proof. The charge is that Obama used a fake birth certificate. That put's the burden of proof on whoever is issuing the charge. That would be you.



Are you freakin' kidding me? The term 'capitalism' as an economic system came from their godhead, Karl Marx himself, so are you going to call every capitalistic part of our economy communism?
LOL ...You are too funny
:thumbup:


Am I what? One of the communists? LOL... do you get a badge if you catch one? Would it even make a difference to you? You're reactions are already at seething level 10, how is a communist going to make a difference?

No. I am not a communist. They have too much work to do to achieve their goals. I'm not up for that.

I just had a... discussion with someone on this site where he said useful idiots are those who beleive anything their leaders say. I agree that's qualification for being an idiot. But I think an idiot becomes useful when he subsequently contributes to a consensus among many idiots, giving the delerium a sort of perceived legitimacy.

Of course the person I was conversing with was only referring to those who believe anything Obama says, but I'm not that discriminatory.

And sure enough as I was closing out I saw a banner-ad from teaparty.org that asks the question... "Should Obama be impeached." I'm sure some of you have seen it. I was curious so I clicked...

Apparently, because no one can actually come up with any empirical evidence that Obama has lied. They are trying the "fake birth certificate" again. The ad says there is fresh evidence that his birth certificate is fake...

That was all that was said about that. There was no presentation of evidence, no link, nothing. Basically, just heresay. So step #1 is already set... If you believe that statement just because the Tea Party says so, then you are an idiot according to the definition provided by the anti-Obama person I was conversing with.

Next the ad proceeds to step #2, which is basically a poll asking if you think Obama should be impeached because of his supposedly fake birth certificate. So without evidence or background, the Tea Party launches a poll that it says "The results of these polls will be published online and are shared with major news networks and policymakers."

And there we have the consensus and the idiots become useful.

It's just funny how after being told about Obama's useful idiots I immediately stumble upon a perfectly illustrative example of how the Tea Party is fostering an entire culture of useful idiots.

That's not what I said. THIS is what I said...


"All I know" a common phrase for qualifying one's opinion against a backdrop of unknowns. If you read my posts you *may* notice that I'm not actually claiming that Obama's administration is the most transparent. I even stated that verbatim. I don't know if the current administration is the *most* "transparent in the history of mankind"

So again... why don't you read what I am posting before attacking me?


Oh... ok, so then are you intentionally ignoring what I am saying and cherry-picking select statements out of context so you can have a place to stick your useful idiot label?

Nice... so intelligent.

I already posted a rational response to the original post. oldroy not being happy with the fact that he can't argue with me is the one who changed the topic so don't blame me. Why don't you read the thread before issuing your seething opinions about the participants?


Yeah? Rules for Radicals? Which part? It's been a long time since I read it. Maybe you can explain the technique you're referring to.

Review:


Cute. Then my response which at least had some explanation added.



Notice how I didn't say anything about what side is what. I was referring to people on all sides that can't get past their anger long enough to be constructive. Then you react with...



I rest my case.

So in context... Republican = I CAN be a useful idiot.

And this means what, exactly? How can we apply this to immigration reform and healthcare costs, genius?[/quote]

thank you inbobwetrust... I was going to explain the National Assembly during the French Revolution and how those who supported the Monarchy sat to the right and those who supported the Republic sat on the left. but you can see by his word games... "the last four letters of..." that he really isn't interested in reality.

Isn't that obvious?

First of all, where did I say Bush was responsible for every negative thing that has happened in the past 4 1/2 years Roy? Show me where I said that. Try not to make so many assumptions about me because you really don't know ANYTHING about my views. As far as I can tell, you've been too busy with your hatefest to even notice them, not that you would understand them if you did.

And I don't claim to know "just" how secretive the Bush government was either because there is probably still a lot we don't know. All I know is that I never heard ANY talk of transparency until Obama came along... I remember the frustrations of the 9/11 commission specifically, while the White House refused to release or even discuss ANY information for almost a month. That was the first time any investigative commission was held up like that in our history. I remember the Bush administration forbidding any coverage of the Iraq war by anyone that wasn't hand picked by the Administration. I could go on and on, but let's just say that all the evidence of secrecy and lies that I found throughout the Bush years is something I haven't seen since.


On the contrary, it's people like you who have developed an emotional hatred for the other side that prevents the rational dialog needed for bipartisanship.

LOL - alrighty then.

Ah, socialism... What a buzz word. I just read an article on the Forbes website by Paul Roderick Gregory, where he tries to confirm Obama's status as a socialist. His entire conclusion is based on a set of principals that Obama shares with the Party of European Socialists, such as...

Ensuring long lasting prosperity, stability and above all, peace requires effective coordination in the international realm based on democracy, mutual respect, and human rights.

Now be careful folks, you don't want to agree with any of THAT nonsense because doing so, according Gregory, makes you a socialist! You see, what he did was bookmark a handful of generalizations that Obama and the Democratic Party have in common with the Party of European Socialists without touching any of the ideas that form the basis of socialism itself.

Just because a socialist says "I'm hungry, I want a taco" doesn't make me a socialist for saying the same thing. If I insist that a government worker make my taco, THEN you can call me socialist, otherwise all I am is hungry. There is nothing socialistic about suggesting that democracy and mutual respect helps insure long lasting prosperity either. It's an idea shared by many people across the board, even some conservatives.

So, what this article taught me is not that Obama is a socialist but that there are people who are willing to distort the meaning of socialism so it can be applied to public figures they don't like. It's the same thing liberals did to make Bush a fascist, or Reagan the anti-Christ. So, I'm not saying it's just conservatives that do it. I suppose with Obama in office, it's just their turn.

Well, it's not exactly earth shattering news. Here's an except from the article itself...

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday defended use of the email accounts by senior U.S. officials as a traditional practice across government and by previous administrations. Carney said the email accounts aren't secret, even though they aren't disclosed to the public, because their contents fall under congressional oversight and the Freedom of Information Act.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with e-mail addresses. Do you know what George Bush's e-mail address was or what address Cheney was using? Of course not. Even if you did, they were probably using 128-bit encryption so it wouldn't help you find anything anyway. Not only that but if government offices were limited to using publicized addresses, their inboxes would always be full of stupid crap from the masses. What matters is content as Carney was suggesting and even then I don't think the content is all that important until it's attached to action because in government action is what really matters... spending money, passing laws, ordering invasions... stuff like that, all of which require official documents anyway.


I don't know if the current administration is the *most* "transparent in the history of mankind" Obama did introduce a lot of transparency but there is also a lot more confidential information now than there was 100 years ago. One thing is for certain though, the secrecy of the last administration was shocking. This is probably why it's so easy for Obama to talk about how transparent his administration is, compared to the Bush administration the KGB was transparent.

BTW... Cracker... I like the flag burning picture you put on your post. I agree, we should stop sending money to to all the oppressors in the M.E. especially Israel. If we did that they probably wouldn't even bother hating us.

First of all, I wasn't criticizing them. Secondly, if what you said was true then all the criticizing of Obama would prove that he doesn't own us either. Fact is we can criticize anyone we want Cracker. And personal opinions on some obscure forum really doesn't weigh in much on the threat matrix.