Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Transcript @18:50: Mike Zullo: The press conference was three days away and the 9 code was still not resolved in my mind and we needed to get verification. For two feverish days Jerry Corsi sent his associate and this woman stayed in the lobby of the CDC (in Atlanta) for eight hours a day for two days trying to get the answer to this question. On the third day it was about two and a half hours before the press conference was going to go at that point in time the 9 code at issue was NOT going to be in it. As fate would have it, Attorney Larry Klayman happened to be in Phoenix so he stopped in, wanted to say "Hello" to the Sherrif. Larry Klayman, Larry Klayman's associate, Sherrif Arpaio, myself and Jerry Corsi were all in the conference room when the phone rang from the woman from the CDC, and I have her information who she is and she's NOT a clerk. She's a highly educated individual. Jerry put her on speakerphone. I remember Jerry with his fingers crossed. She confirmed for us that what we were saying and requesting...what the number "9" meant...was in fact what it was! He asked he to repeat it. "Are you saying this "9" in this box yadda yadda yadda means that?" and she said "Yes" and with that verification we put the 9 code back in the press conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
“I didn’t say anything about Scott turning up more than Maraniss. I merely said that Scott had done a lot of interviews with Stanley Ann’s friends and family.”
You most certainly did say Scott turned up more. You said she had interviewed people who knew about Stanley Ann’s relationship to Obama Jr.— iow, people Maraniss was unable to locate [he having specifically noted that he could NOT find a soul on HI who knew SA & O Jr. even knew ea other, much less that they were a couple].
Stop playing idiotic games. Post the Scott quotes re: the people who knew about SA & O Jr.’s relationship. How many times have you dodged this question? You are acting like a moron or a jerk, take your pick OR finally provide the quotes.
‘There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.’
Provide the quotes from the ‘persons’ who knew about Stanley Ann’s relationship with Obama. You made this claim, & then said you’ve never made a false claim. This claim is a LIE.
Prove it otherwise.
When you’re done posting the Scott quotes, it will be time either to confess that the follow quote from you, about me, is a false claim/LIE, or else to substantiate it with a quote from me:
‘You have to subscribe to the BIZARRE theory that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams, despite having no connection to Obama, Sr. or Obama, Jr., nonetheless took this child into their care and continued with that relationship through their lifetimes.’
I wrote that in light of statements you'd been making that suggested you were questioning Stanley Ann's maternity of Obama. Later I clarified that if in fact, you weren't questioning or denying S.A. is Obama's mother, then nevermind.
You were making the point that no one interviewed claims to have seen Stanley Ann pregnant. I took from that you were questioning her maternity, since if the point is not to question whether she was his mother, then I don't know why you brought up that point. Thus, my statement about the biographers (who without question accept her motherhood) and my point about the lifelong relationships among Obama, S.A., and the Dunhams. If you're not doubting she's his mother, then disregard my follow-ups.
So my statement was conditional: "IF what you're suggesting is that S.A. was not O's mother, then you have to believe that they (along with the Dunhams) had a lifelong relationship for no ostensible reason." A conditional statement isn't a factual statement that can be substantiated or be the basis of a lie. (I predicted in Post #397 this is the sort of thing you would try to haul out).
That was post #388. (See how easy it is to document having said something when one has ACTUALLY said it? So why is it you can't identify by number the post you claim provided your answer to my points about the Hawaii verifications and the FF&C clause? It's because you NEVER ANSWERED and lied claiming you had.)
‘you said that Stanley Ann’s 9-mo black hole was indeed documented. For clarity, here are your exact comments’
“There was at least one biographical piece done on Stanley Ann where the author went and spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama, Jr.
Good grief. How do you take "spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama" and read that to be speaking to the gestation period? "Relationship" with Obama talks about their lives as people who speak and interact -- obviously that isnt' talking about the gestation period.
So in both cases what you've done is misread what I've said, attributing statements to me I didn't make, and then claim I failed to substantiate those statements (which I didn't make) and calling me a "liar."
Is this the best you can do?
Where did I use the word "more," "greater" or words of like import and purport to compare Scott to Maraniss? I didn't. You're just reading in things I didn't say.
You said she had interviewed people who knew about Stanley Ann’s relationship to Obama Jr.
Right. And that is a factual statement: she did interview such persons.
— iow, people Maraniss was unable to locate [he having specifically noted that he could NOT find a soul on HI who knew SA & O
"In other words" is where the ref blows the whistle and pulls the red card out on you. You CANNOT paraphrase what I've said, adding in "other words" I didn't write, and then accuse me of lying. I didn't say one peep there about Maraniss. Again, it's the same dichotomy: you either can't read or are intellectual dishonest. When you repeatedly attribute words to me I didn't say, I favor the latter.
‘You have to subscribe to the BIZARRE theory that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams, despite having no connection to Obama, Sr. or Obama, Jr., nonetheless took this child into their care and continued with that relationship through their lifetimes.’
So you are STILL lying. There is nothing conditional about that statement. You are telling me what I believe, and it is FALSE. It is a lie. So you waffled after being called on it. The statement itself is still a statement of fact, according to YOU, but it is a LIE. You cannot substantiate it.
Or can you. Let’s see the exact quote from me, where I say I believe what you state as an *unconditional* FACT that I believe.
‘How do you take “spoke with persons who knew about her relationship with Obama” and read that to be speaking to the gestation period? “Relationship” with Obama talks about their lives as people who speak and interact — obviously that isnt’ talking about the gestation period.
So in both cases what you’ve done is misread what I’ve said, attributing statements to me I didn’t make, and then claim I failed to substantiate those statements (which I didn’t make) and calling me a “liar.”’
Post the quotes from Scott from the people who know about Stanley Ann’s & O Sr.’s relationship.
Otherwise, your statement is a LIE.
‘You most certainly did say Scott turned up more.
Where did I use the word “more,” “greater” or words of like import and purport to compare Scott to Maraniss? I didn’t. You’re just reading in things I didn’t say.
You said she had interviewed people who knew about Stanley Ann’s relationship to Obama Jr.
Right. And that is a factual statement: she did interview such persons.
— iow, people Maraniss was unable to locate [he having specifically noted that he could NOT find a soul on HI who knew SA & O
“In other words” is where the ref blows the whistle and pulls the red card out on you. You CANNOT paraphrase what I’ve said, adding in “other words” I didn’t write, and then accuse me of lying. I didn’t say one peep there about Maraniss. Again, it’s the same dichotomy: you either can’t read or are intellectual dishonest. When you repeatedly attribute words to me I didn’t say,’
Post the exact quotes from Scott where she interviewed people who knew about Stanley Ann’s & Obama Sr.’s relationship.
know = knew
Understood properly in the context of the discussion, it is, as I explained (the part of my post that you cut out in making your reply). This whole discussion is the product of you reading my initial statement to Ray out of context and attributing to it a weight never intended. Out of context reading seems a penchant of yours.
But we both know this is all smokescreen on your part to avoid answering to things like this: "(See how easy it is to document having said something when one has ACTUALLY said it? So why is it you can't identify by number the post you claim provided your answer to my points about the Hawaii verifications and the FF&C clause? It's because you NEVER ANSWERED and lied claiming you had.)"
You are telling me what I believe
No. I was saying that IF (conditional) what you are suggesting (the problem is you are often vague in what your point is) is that S.A. isn't O's mother, then you would have to also accept (to be consistent) that they and the Dunhams held a lifelong relationship for no ostensible reason. Nothing in that purports to claim what you presently believe. I was clarifying your ambiguity.
"You have to" isn't a statement of present fact. "You have to break some eggs to make an omelette" doesn't necessarily say the eggs have been broken. That might be a present fact if the other person has already started the recipe. Or it might not be if it's not clear if that's happened. Likewise, "you have to believe" is conditional depending on whether the preimise (denial S.A. is O's mother) is the case or not.
The problem in dialogue with you is you so often screw up on fundamental matters of English grammar and syntax. But I provide this tutorial free of charge.
So you duck completely my point that you improperly attempted to paraphrase what I said, adding in "other words" I didn't say about Maraniss, and throw out another hoop you expect me to jump through.
Your avoidance techniques are becoming a textbook case. You can buy her book and read for yourself. Again, my argument for eligibility is grounded primarily on Hawaii's verification of the birth certificate and the Full, Faith & Credit clause. What people told Scott doesn't bear on my argument.
But we both know your bobs and weaves and stalls are just to avoid points and arguments like this:
"The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those facts, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
I was in a discussion some years back (different forum, different subject matter) with a woman who "argues" much like you: avoid answering to my primary argument, keep avoiding, after a while claim it was answered but fail after repeated requests to show where, then insist I keep answering an endless series of new questions she would keep bringing up as her justification for not answering mine. This pattern went on for quite some time. She holds the record (in my experience) for the number of times a poster has ducked a question.
Without giving the number away, I think you stand a good chance to break it.
Can you link me to Obama’s original birth certificate.
Thanx.
‘No. I was saying that IF (conditional) what you are suggesting (the problem is you are often vague in what your point is) is that S.A. isn’t O’s mother, then you would have to also accept (to be consistent) that they and the Dunhams held a lifelong relationship for no ostensible reason. Nothing in that purports to claim what you presently believe. I was clarifying your ambiguity.’
Adding lies to lies will not help you. Here is your original quote. Nothing conditional or clarifying about it; it is a LIE:
“But, you’re a Birther, and you can’t accept this under any circumstance, so you have to keep asking for more and more corroboration by other persons (persons who wouldn’t be as close to the scene as these others). You have to subscribe to the BIZARRE theory that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams, despite having no connection to Obama, Sr. or Obama, Jr., nonetheless took this child into their care and continued with that relationship through their lifetimes. (While making it happen that Obama, Jr., ended up looking a lot like Stanley Ann, despite the supposed lack of biological connection).”
Yes, in context you ARE telling me what I HAVE to believe...and you are LYING.
Since the original is in hardcopy form, I can't. A link is an electronic medium. (Which, btw, is why the WHLFBC can't be a "forgery," as it's an electronic file which obviously doesn't purport to be an original paper document).
You are the one who is avoiding answering a legitimate question. You told me to cite where you had lied. You LIED about what is in Janny Scott’s book. When called on it, you have done your usual, jig, dance, dissemble, change the subject, accuse me of same, etc. etc.
But the fact remains, you LIED about what is in Janny Scott’s book.
If you claim otherwise, Post The Quotes.
& here, for the record, is a third lie:
‘[chuckling sounds] Just as I suspected, if I left it vague, you’d grab for the wrong branch, showing you don’t know the topic as well as you pretend.
Nope. It wasn’t Maraniss. The piece I was referring to was Janny Scott’s A Singular Woman.’
More particularly:
“showing you don’t know the topic as well as you pretend.”
I don’t “pretend” anything; I know the topic every bit as well as I think I do.
For example, I know that Maraniss’ research is superior to Scott’s, at least on the point in question. The statements from him I quoted are the absolute most pertinent to the subject.
I also know that Janny Scott’s book does not contain the quotes you (falsely) claim it does. If you disagree,
Post The Quotes.
But you're again hauling out that portion in isolation from the comments that preceded it and ignoring what I explained later. That before and after part is what is called "context."
Before that statement came my point that there were some who remembered Obama, Jr's birth in Hawaii, and I specifically referenced "Like Dr. Sinclair, who signed the birth certificate. Like Obama, Sr, who told the INS he had a son born in Hawaii."
Again, that was when it was unclear whether you were denying Stanley Ann's maternity. When it became clearer you weren't I said that statement you keep harping on no longer applied. But since Dr. Sinclair witnessing Obama's birth is one of those things you avoid even acknowledging, let along giving intelligent response, your histrionic replies are always skewed and out of context.
Now, that bit of further smokescreen cleared yet again, back to my primary point so I can click the "Avoidance Counter" one more time: The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those fact, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
At some point, even you will have to contend with these FACTS.
When someone I trust says the hard copy exists and what’s on it I’ll trust that
You do not meet those criteria
Meanwhe the actions of the accused merely increased the suspicion
But I never claimed she quoted any one person, let alone purported to claim specifics about what was said. I merely made the point she interviewed friends and family, and I quoted from the review that indicated that.
Yet again, you attribute things to me I never said, and then make a big fuss about it. This is at least the 4th times you've tried this stunt.
Now, that bit of further smokescreen cleared yet again, back to my primary point so I can click the "Avoidance Counter" one more time:
The FACT remains that Hawaii verifying Obama's Hawaiian birth moots your entire line of inquiry as to who did or who didn't see Stanley Ann pregnant. And it moots your inquiry into what home or homes Stanley Ann resided before or after the delivery. Because the FACT remains (despite your utter silence on this point) that in this country we prove the facts of birth by getting the relevant state to certify those fact, NOT by chasing down pregnancy witnesses or grabbing photos of "birth homes."
At some point, even you will have to contend with these FACTS.
(Your avoidance here is beyond comical at this point).
So you are the type of psychotic liar who, when directly confronted with his lies, still denies them.
Sick.
The context does not change the LIE.
Here is the context:
“Some persons did remember. Like Stanley Ann herself, who acknowledged Obama as her son throughout her life. Like the Dunhams, who acknowledged Obama as their daughter’s child. Like Dr. Sinclair, who signed the birth certificate. Like Obama, Sr, who told the INS he had a son born in Hawaii.
But, you’re a Birther, and you can’t accept this under any circumstance, so you have to keep asking for more and more corroboration by other persons (persons who wouldn’t be as close to the scene as these others). You have to subscribe to the BIZARRE theory that Stanley Ann and the Dunhams, despite having no connection to Obama, Sr. or Obama, Jr., nonetheless took this child into their care and continued with that relationship through their lifetimes. (While making it happen that Obama, Jr., ended up”
The part about what I believe is STILL stated as FACT and it is STILL a LIE.
And at this juncture with the remaining Birthers no matter who looked at it and confirmed it says what Hawaii officials have stated it says, I suspect the knee-jerk reply would simply be such person "was threatened or bribed." After all, that's been the retort as to every judge, Congress person, or media figure who take a stance contrary to birther positions. Past is prologue.
You do not meet those criteria
So why are you asking me about the certificate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.