I gave the birthers this a 100 posts ago. It bears repeating, and if they did do this, they would probably make it much easier on them, and us. And, bad conclusions would be a whole lot easier for them to spot:
It’s your info. Set it out in a step wise method where other people can follow what you are saying and see the evidence for each step, and decide on the relevance.
For example, on the one non-white kid with no birth weight, ...I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. How can I, or anybody else, base a decision on this kind of stuff when we have no idea what you are talking about or how it ties into Obama.
It would be like saying “Obama is lying about being born in Hawaii, because everybody knows when you have a dog, INSIDE THE CITY, it has to have its shots.”
Now look at my statement. Part of it is true. Dogs inside the city have to have shots. But that is completely disconnected from any kind of relation to Obama and whether he is lying. Do you see? If you said that to some one, they would dismiss you as a quack, because your statement is just meaningless.
Read it again and tell me how anyone is supposed to have a clue what you are talking about.
BUT, suppose you put it this way.
1. Obama wrote in Das Kapital, that his grandmother bought him a new puppy when he was first born, a Shitzoo named Bonkers. (evidence)
2. At that time, the Dunhams and Obama purportedly lived within the city limits of Honolulu at 1313 Wackaheeni Drive. (evidence)
3. A review of all dog tags issued by the City of Honolulu in 1961 and 1962 reveals no tags issued to a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” or to anyone named Dunham or Obama. (evidence)
4. A review of all AKC papers issued for Hawaii in 1961 and 1962 show no papers issued on a Shitzoo named “Bonkers”or to any one named Dunham or Obama.(evidence)
5. However, a review of all dog tags issued in Mombasa, Kenya for 1961 and 1962 reveals a Shitzoo named “Bonkers” was issued a Non-food Animal tag on August 5, 1961 to an Stanley Ann Dunham registered owner, whose address was 4236 Jihad Drive, Mombasa Kenya.
5. Therefore, based upon the above premises, it is apparent that Obama is a liar, and a commie liar to boot, because no good American would ever lie about his dog.
You see, my statement is set forth in a logical fashion. It is something a non-birther can read and understand.
WARNING TO BIRTHERS!!!! DO NOT TAKE THIS DOG STORY AS TRUE. IT IS MADE UP! OBAMA NEVER CLAIMED HE HAD A SHITZOO NAMED “BONKERS”-—DO NOT ADD THIS ITEM TO THE BIRTHER DATABASE!!!
parsy, who hopes this makes it more clear
At any rate, they believe that Obama is not eligible to be President. They also believe that politics are so corrupt that nothing will be done about it. They aren't members of any forum nor do they visit political sites online (despite my encouragement).
Everyone of them is over 40. Their understanding from what they learned in school is that he is ineligible because of his father.
You can argue all that you like. But the understanding of average Americans is he's a fraud.
Right on Parsy. You aren’t attacking the birthers or what is believed. You just want a clear cogent argument. A is B because of C influenced by D.
You want a written argument that gives a thesis, then states all of the supporting evidence for the thesis.
Gotcha. Thanks! :) Good post!