Thanks to both of you for the tip.

It's a helpful tool when the bridge keeper is of a different opinion than we. (I almost said something that included the concept of "reality," but I decided to can it.)

To Balak, concerning the members comments on Orly's "evidence":

From the Transcript:

MS. RIORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've reviewed these materials, and actually they're not 300 pages of sworn testimony. There are several unnumbered pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is a so-called legal document that you drafted, no grounds for admission, 100 percent hearsay. And then we have several pages of typed transcript, which I've read some of, and it's actually pretty ridiculous, but again, 100 percent hearsay, inadmissible, and there are a number of other many illegible documents, totally unclear where they came from, whether they were printed off the internet or just some random other source. Nothing that is appropriately before the commission. There's been no personal authentication or certification or any reason put forth why this body should be taking the public's time to even review these documents for a minute. And so with that, I would ask that unless there's any more discussion, I'd like to call the question on the motion to deny the admission of this evidence so that we can move forward to looking at this on the merits.


so yes, they saw the evidence; Ms Riordan even knew exactly what was in it, commented on it, and came to conclusion that it was crap.

Balak if evidence is irrelevant the only response is "so what?" That is what irrelevance means.

When you are in a hole, it's best to stop digging.

reconsidered!

Batak, it seems to bother you that only one committee member states that she reviewed all of the submitted materials. Is that the only thing that bothers you?

Well, well, well... I just went and took a look at the blog Balak claims as his own. The last (only) post is from the same time as he joined Fogbow... October of last year.

It appears to be a classic conspiracy theorist set of assertions that the government pays "Disinformationalists" to spread false info around the web to keep the truth concealed. Here are some highlights from the post "Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist" :



And... one with a particularly telling last line, possible ironic.



LOL... I believe that Orly's embarrassment in Indiana today was just too much for Balak to keep the mask on anymore.

Much Ado: "Batak, it seems to bother you that only one committee member states that she reviewed all of the submitted materials. Is that the only thing that bothers you?"

No. But I think I covered it all above. Anything else I could add would only help the Birthers.

I did the ignore thing merely coz the Desi Arnazish photo irked me.

Neon, good job on the un-ignore!

Now back to the kindle and the 11th century where I belong.

Some of us would like to have a discussion of what actually went on in Indiana today. And would prefer not to have to make the continual detours into the weeds that Balak seems to be requiring.

I don't need to discuss over and over what evidence is, that this wasn't a court, that the commissioners weren't judges, and that we don't have to feel sorry for Orly Taitz because she didn't get justice.

And I find it burdensome wading through 20 posts all patiently explaining to Balak why Orly Taitz wasn't entitled to a default judgment, and why President Obama shouldn't have lost.

In my view all of Balak's comments from the first post on this subject, have been birther. And they're a waste of time refuting over and over. Having him ignore the responses. To continue to misrepresent what the proceedings were. And to move the goal posts. (Balak is back to calling this a court proceeding, pages after he was not only corrected, but acknowledged the correction. Who does that remind people of?)

This is my last rant on the subject. Balak is on ignore, where he richly deserves to be. (Though others continue to quote-post his . . . er . . . comments.) But from what I've read and seen, Balak really belongs under the bridge. I think this thread has been fouled and I would prefer conversing with those who understand what happened today, or respectfully want to find out. I think there is another place to continue to express sympathy for Orly Taitz and the birthers. to move the goal posts, and to misrepresent. It's not here.

LOL.. is that you "Sveve?"

The hearing is kinda popular...


Who is out there in Singapore? Give a shout-out!!

I cannot say certainly that Orly shed a tear today, but at the end of the video she did wipe her eye, then her nose as if the nasolacrimal duct provided overflow relief from her lacrimal sac.

An epic smackdown indeed.

How? There is nothing here that could possibly serve to help the birther.

And that is why I am shutting up NOW.

Is that near the narcissi-acrimonial gland?

Ewwwwww!!!! tmi!

I do not get it... What could you possibly contribute that would serve to help the birther? So far, most of your comments would only do a disservice to the birther who would adopt them as his or hers. With that knowledge, one can be sure that thus we will see widespread acceptance of your position, leading to further demise of the birther.



Very clever... Pretending to be one to undermine them...

I'm told that Balak is a performance artist fucking with us and fouling our thread.

I'm not amused. May I suggest we stop interacting with this performance artist so we can discuss what happened today and not the infantile Sacha Baron Cohen impersonator?

He is not very good at it either. But I appreciate your concerns, and it is time to ignore our aspiring artist.

Impressive. Ignore list at Site Statistics:

And all in only a few hours. That has to be the fastest anyone was shunned by so many so quickly.

Bonus fact: Tied with KenyaBornObamAcorn. That takes some doing.

I know she's awful, and I know she's rude, but I was still pretty surprised by her attitude when there was a disruption. In my opinion, her tone and words were meant to encourage the guy who was yelling. She knows she's inciting rage. She knows it.

I agree and apologize about slipping into troll-response mode.

One interesting thing about this hearing in common with NH and HI was watching officials get bushwhacked by a complainant whose craptice is so far out in left field that they are literally speechless at points.

I find this phrasing very puzzling. Is there such a thing a 'providing authentication for my own affidavit?' Is this some kind of O'rlylaw? Does it have any meaning at all?

Has anyone counted how many outright premeditated lies she uttered in the relatively short period of time that she spoke or replied to questions? There are at least 6. She was specifically warned about lying from the get go and yet very specifically then set out to flaunt that warning. Once again she'll probably get away with it. Yet somehow she'll come out of this a victim