Posted on 10/05/2014 3:26:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
‘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.’
So when I said you were the most dishonest person on the site, turns out I was right.
Here is your Scott quote:
“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.”
“[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.”
The $ quote:
“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”
Having identified the author who “went and spoke with persons who knew about [SA’s] relationship with Obama [Sr]...you LIED. Those quotes are not in Scott’s book.
Stop adding one lie on top of another, and cite the quotes.
Or admit you are a LIAR.
Btw, fyi, the purpose of FR is not to provide Obot Trolls with a forum in which to lie about and impugn conservatives. Somewhere along the line you got confused on that point, because that is the use to which you put the site.
You are misusing it.
Now, clearly, you are getting frustrated that I keep posting this:
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.
And 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.)"
I've found in past discussion when a person is badly floundering in a discussion, they will elevate some side bit in the discussion and move it stage center so as to create a pretext for ceasing further discussion. I suspect that's why you keep harping on a statement that I said no longer applies in light of you making it clear you weren't denying S.A.'s maternity of O. I see the "you're just a bad, bad person and I refuse to engage is further dialogue." (Which of course would be completely disingenuous since you've called me an "Obot shill" over and over in past discussions. Yet you gleefully jumped onto my post to Ray.)
But now the discussion isn't going well for you and yuou're completely stumped about how to respond to my points outlined above. Do you want to try that exit strategy? Or is it simpler to just admit you can't answer to the points I've put in blockquotes above and just move on?
Birthers aren't conservatives.
If you haven't noticed, Mr. Robinson himself sent packing a number of those who kept promoting the "two citizen parent" theory of natural born citizen. The F.R. Moderators some months back were in open mockery of the loopy theories being advocated that Loretta Fuddy was offed in some plot to down an aircraft and do her in with some secret ninja scuba assassin. Start a thread about the next promise by Zullo and the Cold Case Posse and watch the sarcasm flow (even without the help of those derided as "Obots.")
As far as I can tell, I'm in alignment with the F.R. owner and moderators on these issues. If I'm not, then I'll take heed of any suggestion by the Mods. I"m not sure what your point here is.
Correction above: I should say “Birtherism isn’t a conservative issue, as it’s been largely rejected by a majority of conservative politicians and commentators.”
Again (you are nothing if not repetitive and tedious), an author can obtain material from various sources and utilize that material in the author's account without directly quoting any person. I've merely said Scott interviewed a number of persons. I didn't claim any part of her narrative was direct quotations.
So stop asking me to show something I never said.
‘So stop asking me to show something I never said.’
Liar. I heaver asked you to show something you never said.
Here is your Scott quote:
“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.”
“[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.”
The $ quote:
“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”
Having identified the author who “went and spoke with persons who knew about [SA’s] relationship with Obama [Sr]...you LIED. Those quotes are not in Scott’s book.
Stop adding one lie on top of another, and cite the quotes.
Or admit you are a LIAR.
Here’s the part you dodged/refused yet again to address.
“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.
I am a conservative and you have lied relentlessly about me.
You are an Obot Troll.
So that means that you, an Obot Troll, are using the site to post nonstop lies about a conservative.
That is not the purpose of the site.
‘Birthers aren’t conservatives.’
Now you’re just being silly/stupid.
So liberal anti-birther Obot Trolls ARE conservatives?
Is that what you’re saying, Hook?
Really???
‘Birtherism’
Lol.
I believe Obama is a liar. Is that ‘birtherism’?
I believe Obama is a pathological liar. Is that birtherism?
You don’t believe Obama is a pathological liar.
Is that your definition of conservatism?
Lol.
‘I should say “Birtherism isn’t a conservative issue’
Lol.
Let’s give this a try.
A person who believes Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from my Father.
What would that be, Hook? A mere Birther? A Birtherist?
What?
A person who believes Obama wrote the larger part of Dreams from my Father (or, as Obama has claimed, ALL of Dreams from my father).
What would you call that, Hook?
A ‘conservative’?
Lol.
‘I should say “Birtherism isn’t a conservative issue’
I think I’ve got it.
Try this.
A person who believes Obama is bisexual at best, but quite possibly homosexual.
Is that what you mean by ‘birtherism’, Hook?
Or this:
A person who believes Obama is a pure, straight heterosexual.
Is that your definition of a ‘conservative’, Hook?
Is it?
Lol.
You have. I've answered to that point multiple times now (and I can even give you the specific post numbers). Move on.
But we both know you're still desperately trying to avoid answering to my main substantive point. I've been remiss in not adding this to my last few posts. The "How many times can Fantasywriter evade a question" counter slowed a bit. So here it is:
"Now, clearly, you are getting frustrated that I keep posting this:
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.
And 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.)"
One can only wonder how you think you're making some point when you so assiduously avoid answer to the other's side primary argument?
‘I should say “Birtherism isn’t a conservative issue’
Let’s give this another try.
A person who believes Obama lies about everything, including his birth.
What would you call that, Hook?
A birtherist?
Of perhaps even a liberal Obot Troll???
How about this.
A person who believes Obama is more honest than not, and has been more honest than not about his birth.
What would you call that, Hook?
A conservative?
Lol. You crack me up.
No, you never gave me the Scott quotes you mentioned.
Still lying.
Per usual.
Btw, I am DYING to read the Scott quotes to which you alluded. Simply cannot wait. The sooner you post them, the better.
‘I should say “Birtherism isn’t a conservative issue,’
Still trying to get straight on your definitions, Hook. I’ll take another stab.
A person on FR who spends ALL their posting time defending Obama & his lying, fraudulent claims (which the person never, ever, admits are lying fraudulent claims) while lying about & demeaning conservatives.
According to Hook, a conservative!
A person who spends part of their time on FR exposing Obama’s nativity-related lies, & the rest of their time promoting conservatism.
According to Hook, a birtherist!
Lol.
Oh, and speaking of lies, who can forget this whopper?
‘”Evidence” is simply something that tends to prove (or disprove) a matter. One bit of evidence doesn’t preclude the existence of contrary evidence. (In a legal case, both sides can submit evidence that points to differing conclusions.). I’m saying the fact of occupancy is itself evidence of eligibility because the rather adversarial process (one candidate versus another, one party versus another, the media versus all) raises the stakes for having an ineligible person run or nominated. That’s not to say there can’t be counter evidence.’
“the media versus all”
Did I miss something? I.e.: did you ‘substantiate’ that the media is as equally ‘versus’ the Dems as it is ‘versus’ conservatives?
Or is this not the biggest, most blatant lie on the thread?
‘Identify one claim I’ve made that I’ve not been able to substantiate. I’m calling you out on this one. No ducking. No weaseling out by pointing to something that’s simply a matter of opinion or probability. It logically has to be a claim that is susceptible of substantiation (i.e., a factual claim).
So try and find one. You will fail.’
Will do.
How about the claim you have made numerous times on this thread that the media vetted Obama? Where is your evidence for that howling falsehood? During the entire ‘08 campaign Obama was asked by the media only one timid, tentative vetting question—when Stephanopoulos mildly & respectfully, without any follow-up, inquired about Jeremiah Wright. For that Stephanopoulos was brutally savaged. Nor was Obama asked a single other vetting-type question either before or after that incident.
But you say otherwise. Substantiate the claim, by all means.
Oh, & while you’re at it, do this too. Explain why anybody other than a full bore Obot Troll would even imagine, much less ***claim*** the media had vetted Obama. Cannot WAIT to read your explanation!
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.