Posted on 07/18/2015 12:53:28 PM PDT by spacejunkie2001
...and inverted the '08 portion to read '80, then stamped the bottom of a fake selective service form as if he really filled it out. Sheriff Joe's Posse proved that all forms had the entire year in the stamp....but not odumbo's.
When, pray tell, will ANY of the media do their job and search out obamas's fake documents and confront him with it????
It's an egregious case of the "I've only got one argument to make, so I'll just keep on that point" technique.
But of course it's all relevant. If no one alive today recalls a pregnant Stanley Ann in Hawaii, that means Obama couldn't have been born there. And since (by equal force) no one recalls a pregnant Stanley Ann anywhere else that means Obama was not born anywhere on earth! So THAT means either 1) he was found in a cabbage patch or 2) he's an extraterrestrial alien. In either case he's not a "natural born citizen."
I'm afraid we're stuck.
CNN has a video!?! Too funny!! Of course CNN is the final arbiter. All conservatives know that! Anything CNN says is true! They are not biased—not even a smidgen! They are the gold standard!
/sarc
Are you drinking??
You've yet to establish the relevancy of your point to anything under discussion.
There is no online write up of his first house/the one he was brought home to.
With someone like George W. Bush, it was a simple matter to go talk to George H.W. and Barbara about the details of the home to which W was brought (as the biographer referenced in the NYT article no doubt did).
The deficiency in the accounts of Manniss and others is that they didn't talk to Stanley Ann, BHO (Sr), Grandpa Stanley or Toots -- the people who would have had the best firsthand information about where Stanley Ann brought the baby after the Hospital stay. So the accounts are not complete by any stretch.
You're trying to draw a conclusion from an incomplete account. Apparently, you can't see why that makes your conclusion problematic.
You don’t get it, and you never will. This, despite the point not being at all complex. Go back and read my first post re: an address appearing on the BC at which SAD and the baby never lived. The info is there, but you will not be able to process it. This is not merely due to your obot-blinders. It is also due to a general lack of acuity. I first noticed the full extent of the latter that time you went briefly off your script. You may not recall the full idiocy of what you posted. I, however, cannot forget it. It was a huge, gaping window into the problem.
And the problem persists. Believe me, I would LOVE to discuss all this with a very intelligent anti-birther.
Problem is, I have yet to meet one.
Let’s say Fantasywriter is 100% correct and Stanley Ann Dunham and newborn Barack Obama never lived at 6055 Kalanianaole Highway.
SO WHAT? It has zero bearing on Article II, Section 1 eligibility. The address of the parents is irrelevant.
I would love to discuss this with a birther who has an IQ above 80 but there aren’t any.
But they won’t name them (the witnesses)
My question:
Who were the supposed witnesses to a preggers SADO?
“.... found people who remembered a pregnant Stanley Ann in HI during those crucial nine months. ....”
Thanks for the example of the full “1980”, as opposed to the cut and flipped “08” to make an “80”.
Would that be #63, where you make the claim that the address issue is the 'key to understanding Obama's LFBC' but in no way attempt to explain in what way it's the "key?" Assertion without argument is meaningless.
The info is there, but you will not be able to process it. This is not merely due to your obot-blinders
No, it'd due to your being daft and incomprehensible.
And your "off script" bit is only your penchant for going off-topic. I have a much different recollection of prior exchanges.
But what Nero asked: even if S.A. hadn't lived at her parent's address, so what? Right after my child left for college, we moved. He would put down our (parents') address as "his" address, even though for the better part of a year he'd never lived there. It's quite possible S.A., due to the scandalous nature of the pregnancy and/or limited space at the parents' place, lived with some kindly person her parents found to care for her in those final months till delivery. It's temporary. So it's no surprise that temporary address wasn't used.
You still haven't made the argument as to why the address makes one whit's difference. To make assertions is easy. To substantiate those assertions with argument takes intelligence.
“You’ve yet to establish the relevancy of your point to anything under discussion.”
To what point are you alluding?
You had just said "you two need to stop working so hard to prove my point." That point; the one you called 'my point.'"
And if a simple reading in context is too hard for you, I'll spell it out: how is it relevant to the question of Obama's eligibility -- given he was born in a hospital -- to find the hone to which he was later briefly taken? (I say briefly, because Stanley Ann went to Seattle a few weeks later.)
The point about the house is that if he had been born in HI somebody would know about it. Someone would know where SAD was living and what she did all those mos. Someone would have some kind of corroboration. There are people who remember her from every other period of her life, including high school and her first term at college.
The obot version that she spent her pregnancy in HI, went to the hospital, gave birth and brought the baby home without ANYBODY noticing is psychotic. It disgusts me, to see adults whom claim to be sane and semi-intelligent stake out these idiotic positions. No, I don’t believe any of the obots are very bright. They can’t be, to believe the lunatic things they do. Arrogance in a not-bright person is unbecoming. But that sums obots up: not bright but VERY arrogant.
Now, is there one obot who is both bright enough and honest enough to admit one point? The point is this: according to Maraniss, SAD was not living with her parents prior to giving birth, nor did she bring her baby home to her parents’ house.
Can even one of you admit this blindingly obvious fact?
On a side note, here is one reason I have concluded that obots are very dim. Namely, it takes next to no brains to perceive that Obama lies, lies relentlessly, and lies about almost everything. Granted when he first came on the national stage little was known about him. But he began publicly lying right out of the gate—the whoppers he told about his bigoted, racist, hate-mongering pastor, for example—and before long there was no excuse. People either knew he was a pathological liar, or they were stupid. A or B.
“You might be quite surprised ... most of us are familiar with the comparisons between Lincoln and Kennedy, but have you ever considered the comparisons between President Obama and President Lincoln?
Abraham Lincoln & Barack Obama
1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration.
Obama used the very same bible Lincoln used for his inauguration.
2. Lincoln came from Illinois.
Obama comes from Illinois.
3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature.
Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President.
Obama had very little experience before becoming President.
5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
6. Lincoln was highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.
Obama is highly respected by some, but intensely disliked by others.
7. Abraham Lincoln was a tall, skinny lawyer.
Barack Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
8. Lincoln held to basic Conservative and Christian views.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
9. Lincoln volunteered in the Illinois militia, once as a captain, twice as a private.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
10. Lincoln firmly believed in able persons carrying their own weight.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
11. Lincoln was undeniably, and without any doubt, born in the United States.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
12. Lincoln was honest; so honest that he was called ‘Honest Abe’.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
13. Lincoln preserved the United States as a strong nation, respected by the world.
Obama is still a tall, skinny lawyer.
14. Lincoln showed his obvious respect for the flag, U.S. Constitution, and the military.
Obama is a tall, skinny lawyer.
Isn’t this amazing! “
lol
Oh, I think some most certainly did know about it: Stanley Ann, Grandpa Stanley and Grandma Toots, Dr. Sinclair (who signed the birth certificate). You're relying on an account (Maraniss) which lacks the input on those with the most critical first-hand knowledge of events in those days. Like I said, you're trying to draw an inference and conclusion from an incomplete account. Though you seem blind to that reality.
But, do tell: if it's impossible to carry pregnancy to full term and give birth without those around the person knowing about it, then where is the evidence of her pregnancy from that place where Stanley Ann was, if not Hawaii? Who are the person(s) who saw her pregnant in that other place? Who are the persons who noted the home to which Stanley Ann brought the newborn in that (non-Hawaiian) location?
If the absence of that evidence in Hawaii means Stanley Ann didn't give birth there, then the absence of that evidence in any other place means she didn't give birth in any other place. So either you're implying a) that Stanley Ann wasn't BHO II's mother (which is what I construed you to be saying at one point) or b) Obama is some sort of cabbage patch kid or extraterrestrial who just magically sprang up out of nowhere. You can't special-plead this and claim the absence of such pregnancy evidence is significant as to Hawaii, but not significant anywhere else. It's your standard -- you have to apply it consistently or not at all.
The obot version that she spent her pregnancy in HI, went to the hospital, gave birth and brought the baby home without ANYBODY noticing is psychotic.
No, that version accepts the very real possibility that their 17 year old daughter being impregnated by this philandering African guy was something of a social scandal, and so the Dunhams kept Stanley Ann out of view. (A common practice in 60's America).
The point is this: according to Maraniss, SAD was not living with her parents prior to giving birth, nor did she bring her baby home to her parents’ house.
Again, Maraniss is drawing that conclusion without the input of Stanley Ann or her parents -- the persons in the best position to know. I accept it's possible Stanley Ann didn't reside with her parents; that the Dunhams found a person to look after S.A. from the point her pregnancy became more difficult or more obvious. I don't consider that point proven either way. The historical record is too incomplete.
In any event, the point is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the question of proof of birth and eligibility. As noted above, I was able to procure passports for my children based on birth certificates that listed NOTHING about residence (parents or newborn) at the time of birth. And I didn't have to track down and get sworn statements from persons attesting they saw my wife pregnant at the time and in that locale. I'm sure that's quite a revelation to you. These after-birth-residence and who-saw-her-pregnant things you keep harping on are NOT the "keys" you wish to make them out to be.
That’s pretty good! Thanks for the ping.
“Oh, I think some most certainly did know about it: Stanley Ann, Grandpa Stanley and Grandma Toots, Dr. Sinclair (who signed the birth certificate).”
This is the very essence of stupidity, and it’s not the first time you’ve done it. What you are saying, in so many words, is that because you assume you’re right, you’re right. The question is, was SAD in HI. Your response is, ‘Since I assume she was there, then in fact she was there, and all these people would have known about it.’
You have an illogical and disordered mind. You have no comprehension of what constitutes evidence or witness testimony. You claim all these dead people, if they were alive, would say SAD was in HI. That assumes she was there. Yet you seem INCAPABLE of comprehending the fallacy of arguing, ‘it’s true because I assume it’s true.’
Please stop wasting my time. All this has been explained to you before, but you are evidently too thick to grasp it. You need to find someone with unlimited time and patience to explain such basics to you...over and over and over.
No freaking wonder you are an obot, if this is the best you can do.
So you're combining both rant and straw man arguments into one froth-at-the-mouth retort. Good one.
That wasn't my point; you're badly paraphrasing it. My point was that Maraniss's historical account is obviously incomplete -- it lacks the testimony of those who had the BEST first-hand knowledge. And there are plausible explanations why those other persons more remote from the immediate family going's on may not have noticed S.A. pregnant, e.g., it was a scandalous pregnancy and the Dunhams preferred that S.A. be out of sight, like many others in that era with pregnant teen daughters. This shouldn't be so hard for you to fathom.
You have an illogical and disordered mind.
Ah, and the projection comes in full flurry.
You have no comprehension of what constitutes evidence or witness testimony.
And how many trials have you conducted where you've had to prepare witness testimony and navigate the rules of evidence? I'll bet the house that I've done more than you have. You are the height of silliness here.
That assumes she was there.
I don't have to assume anything. There's a birth certificate that says S.A. was there. There's a school application submitted by S.A. and Lolo that says Barack was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. There's INS file records pertaining to BHO (Sr) that indicate a son born in Hawaii on that date. There are passport records of Stanley Ann indicating the same. Obama himself stated to the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicgo Tribune, and L.A. Times (and it was reported in each of those national publications) in 1990 that he was "born in Hawaii."
You're attempting the fatuous argument that because in 2008 and later a person can't be found who recalls S.A. pregnant in Hawaii 50 years earlier all this other evidence is somehow wrong.
Please stop wasting my time.
As with our prior 4 or 5 interactions, you were the one to first ping me. Then, as before, you get upset when I get you off your script by asking you questions you can't (or won't) answer. Then you get all huffy.
Your pattern is predictable. That's why I don't initiate these dialogues with you.
All this has been explained to you before, but you are evidently too thick to grasp it.
More projection. I've pointed out to you before that you've got no evidence of a pregnant S.A. anywhere . So that means either (1) she didn't give birth at all (which you're not claiming) or (2) it's quite possible to carry a pregnancy to term and have no extant witnesses to that 50 years later (which shoots down your supposed "point."). You had no answer to this logical deconstruction of your argument before; you have no answer now. Now as before you have to resort to the same "you just don't get it" projection.
if this is the best you can do.
Right back at you. This IS the best you can do, which is why Birther theories and arguments are viewed as the tinfoil hat stuff they are by so many, even most conservatives.
So many words to deny that you did what you did. I.e.: you said ‘all these dead people would have affirmed I’m right...because I’m right.’
I have no doubt you have prepared many dead people to take the witness stand and give verbal testimony in a trial. Sounds exactly like something you’d do.
BTW, if you can’t answer the question I asked, don’t bother answering a question I didn’t ask.
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.