Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Regnad Kcin]

The point is there Robert, that since none of the other stuff that you and your trailer trash friends talk about is real, the only thing that's left is race. You do know that none of that stuff about birth certificates is made up stuff? Right? And since it's made up, you gotta ask why people keep making it up. And the answer is that Obama's a Black man and some people don't like the idea that a Black man can be President.

Got it now? Or do I need to say it again?

To be fair, while there is without question a racial component within the opposition to the president, I'd wager it is simply hyper-partisanship. Had Hillary won the election instead, among her critics* would be many who are anti-woman to some degree, but, on the whole, they (the critics) would point to the numerous Republican females holding elective office as well as populating the party. But because Ms. Clinton has the audacity to be a Democrat...well!

Were the same Mr. Obama a Republican (which would not be much of a stretch, IMO) he'd be a favorite son, with next to none of these questions or vitriol directed his way.

*I shudder to think how beyond the level of Obama derangement that would've been!

 

[Scott Sommers]

To be fair, while there is without question a racial component within the opposition to the president, I'd wager it is simply hyper-partisanship. Had Hillary won the election instead, among her critics* would be many who are anti-woman to some degree, but, on the whole, they (the critics) would point to the numerous Republican females holding elective office as well as populating the party. But because Ms. Clinton has the audacity to be a Democrat...well!

Were the same Mr. Obama a Republican (which would not be much of a stretch, IMO) he'd be a favorite son, with next to none of these questions or vitriol directed his way.

*I shudder to think how beyond the level of Obama derangement that would've been!

Of course. In fact, there is a real life example of this. Bobby Jindal's parents were foreign students in the USA when he was born. This hasn't stopped him from being an example of a minority supporter of nutbar ideas.

 

[Robert Prey]

You're expected to be aware of the existing refutations, and to account for them in your post. Do you think these issues spring into existence ex nihilo the moment you start paying attention to them? No, they are subjects of ongoing (and in most cases, rationally settled) debate. Simply starting the debate over, as you seem to have done, is dishonest.

A well informed person is expected to be aware that none of these points have been refuted, and most of them are beyond any dispute. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

 

[Tomtomkent]

A well informed person is expected to be aware that none of these points have been refuted, and most of them are beyond any dispute. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

No. That is what somebody who is ignorant and woefully ill informed might think.

None of your claims stand. The evidence is easy to find. Even the misunderstanding or sources of the falsehoods are well understood and documented. It is perfectly honest to truthfully point out none of your claims have ever overcome a burden of proof, withstoodscrutiny, or shown to be valid.

And by the way, that which is claimed out of hand is dismissed out of hand... If you want to bring these claims to the table, and don't want them laughed at offer all this proof andevidence you must have to hand for them to be "beyond dispute".

 

[Robert Prey]

I chose 2004 as an ending point because I wanted to talk about things before Obama.

I kind of expected eliminating school prayer, legalizing the murder of unborn children, the Senate acquitting Bill Clinton of obstruction of justice, the Clinton "hit list," granting China MFN status, lax enforcement of drug laws, lax enforcement of immigration laws, inciting class warfare in an effort to gain/hold power, allowing gays into the military, rewriting history books to hide truths from schoolchildren, attempting to destroy traditional family values, attempting to redefine traditional families, passing gun control legislation, or something like that.

You don't have to chose from my list, I am just looking for the most evil act perpetrated by the demonic Democrat Party between 1940 and 2004.

Yeah, there are so many, hard to choose. But legalizing the murder of unborn children has to be right up there and even infanticide, or babies that survive abortion (which Obama voted in favor of in the Ill. State Senate) pretty well gives evidence of the Dems as the party of Demons. 50 million murders of the unborn since 1973 -- over a million a year -- over 3000 per day. And this in a nation nation whose Declaration asserts the inalienable right to life.

 

[Robrob]

A well informed person is expected to be aware that none of these points have been refuted, and most of them are beyond any dispute. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

Please feel free to present one or two of what you consider to be the most damming of your points and we'll see how long it takes to:

1) Debunk them.

2) Show they have been debunked for years.

I suspect I will have to use a stopwatch to time this...

 

[Robert Prey]

Please feel free to present one or two of what you consider to be the most damming of your points and we'll see how long it takes to:

1) Debunk them.

2) Show they have been debunked for years.

I suspect I will have to use a stopwatch to time this...

Pick your own poison.

 

[Ladewig]

Yeah, there are so many, hard to choose. But legalizing the murder of unborn children has to be right up there and even infanticide, or babies that survive abortion (which Obama voted in favor of in the Ill. State Senate) pretty well gives evidence of the Dems as the party of Demons. 50 million murders of the unborn since 1973 -- over a million a year -- over 3000 per day. And this in a nation nation whose Declaration asserts the inalienable right to life.

Thanks.

I am out of questions for now.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And this in a nation nation whose Declaration asserts the inalienable right to life.

Then why is the idea of state healthcare, offering life preserving medical care evil?
And for that matter, if the right to life is inalienable, should you not be rallying against the death penalty, ownership of handguns and acknowledging which percentage of abortions were a medical necessity to preserve the life of the mother?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Pick your own poison.

Nope. They are your claims. Choose the one you find most convincing and present it with evidence. Don't make excuses or try to shift the buck.

 

[Natan]

Wayne Allyn Root has been lying about Obama and Columbia for years.

But has Obama denied it? I guess that makes it true.

 

[Dcdrac]

No you have to prove its true with real evidence and not just internet links

 

[Natan]

It's a sarcastic remark considering the belief in another thread that lack of refutation and denial by officials is proof of the alleged.

 

[Dcdrac]

where is your evidence for anything you say all I see on other threads are links to totally discredited and debunked authors or whcko websites.

 

[A'isha]

It's a sarcastic remark considering the belief in another thread that lack of refutation and denial by officials is proof of the alleged.

And since the two situations are in no way comparable, your post comes off as the laughable non sequitur that it is.

 

[JayUtah]

A well informed person is expected to be aware that none of these points have been refuted, and most of them are beyond any dispute. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

There's not much I can do with this statement, since it's simply "I know you are, but what am I?" I was hoping you'd expend a bit more thought.

Did you miss entirely the lengthy thread just a few rows down the page, where all the Birther nonsense has been discussed for going on years now? Before starting yet another Birther thread, it would be wise for you to see what your eventual respondents have already said on the subject, and continue the discussion from that point, not from the beginning of time. Yes, we do expect you to be conversant with the current state of the debate, and no, you don't get to pretend that nothing has been said regarding the points you raise.

Now please try again.

 

[Robert Prey]

There's not much I can do with this statement, since it's simply "I know you are, but what am I?" I was hoping you'd expend a bit more thought.

Did you miss entirely the lengthy thread just a few rows down the page, where all the Birther nonsense has been discussed for going on years now? Before starting yet another Birther thread, it would be wise for you to see what your eventual respondents have already said on the subject, and continue the discussion from that point, not from the beginning of time. Yes, we do expect you to be conversant with the current state of the debate, and no, you don't get to pretend that nothing has been said regarding the points you raise.

And you don't get to pretend the question has been settled.

 

[JayUtah]

And you don't get to pretend the question has been settled.

Why aren't you trying again as I asked?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And you don't get to pretend the question has been settled.

Let's start with the first of your reasons, the "fake birth certificate". Since this is an official document issued by the State of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii has stated that it is genuine, the question has been settled. Why should you get to pretend it hasn't?

Dave

 

[Ladewig]

And you don't get to pretend the question has been settled.

Regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as president:

If you have taken one particular side on a controversial issue in a national debate and the three most prominent people you can find to champion your cause are "Shurf Joe", Donald Trump, and Alex Jones, then it might be wise to reevaluate the evidence and reasoning that led you to that position.​

ETA: of course that advice works only when one has used evidence and reasoning to arrive at one's position in the first place.