Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by rnaa
rnaa, do a search of the entire document, NOWHERE does the word "video" appear in it, so whatever you *think* you have found referencing "video conferencing" is a figment of your imagination.
But again, nice effort at debunking, a failed effort, but nice all the same.
Betting on folks not ever looking at links is a good play, but I will be more than glad to keep you on your toes
As to Hawaii's rules link, those were updated in 2005, but of course, you knew that right? You read it.
Page 3 the table of contents:
page 11 right at the top of the page
durable record of any facsimile, electronic, Internet
website notice or other communication between the
department and the public. The department shall
preserve, as needed, audio and video recordings taken
of public department proceedings, or a transcript of
Page 13 at the bottom
§11-1-10 Videoconferences. (a) The department
may conduct meetings and hearings by videoconference.
(b) Public meetings held by videoconference by
attached entities are subject to section 92-3.5, HRS.
(c) Before the videoconference of a contested
case hearing, the hearings officer shall arrange a
etc, etc, etc, on page 14, 16, 17, 34, and 37.
But you knew that, because you read it, right?
And you searched the entire document just so you could call me a liar, right?
And if it was updated in 2005, then you can tell us how many times has it been updated between 1961 and 2005? Or completely replaced?
Did you get your Ouiji Board out to determine which part was still intact since 1961 and it magically proved to be the part that you think supports your argument?
That link was specific to filings, not race identifiers, the document from 1961 was specific to race identifiers used in 1961.
Twisting & turning to debunk, good aerobic exercise
[edit on 10/31/09 by redhatty]
And that 1961 US Census Bureau document is still irrelevant to your argument. It proves nothing except that the hospital did not use the US Census Bureau standard description.
Actually, I'm wrong here. It also proves that the Hawai'ian State Government did not alter the information from what the Hospital wrote down, even though they had agree with the Feds that they would use the standard terminology to make data analysis easier.
It proves that the INFORMATION on the Birth Certificate that Obama has published is a true copy of the information on the hospital's document, even though it contains a non-standard field value.
Note: it is not an error, it is just a non-standard field value. It gives the data entry keypunch people at the Census Bureau the sh*ts because they would have to translate it for the computers, but it isn't an error.
It also proves that the Obama Senior had nothing to hide. Had he self-identified as 'black' that would have given no information about his non-American background. It proves that he was proud of his own identity as an African, and was aware that 'black' could be taken to refer to an American black man, and wanted to be sure that his son would always be aware of his ancestry.
It proves the extra affirmation that the Department gave was an honest one. It confirms that the INFORMATION displayed on the Obama Birth Certificate was a true transcription of the Hospital's information .
And you know what else? My Michigan Birth Certificate has an error on it too. The hospital misspelled my mother's name. And you know what else? It cannot be corrected on Birth Certificates. And you know why? Because with the Birth Certificate the State is certifying that the INFORMATION on the BC is a true copy of the information they were given by the hospital.
[edit on 31/10/2009 by rnaa]