TF, If you can’t even admit to changing the subject, or if you genuinely didn’t know that’s what you did, it inspires no confidence in anything else you say. That’s either v muddled or v dishonest thinking, & in neither case warrants further time or attention.
Here is your post that I originally responded to:
“Well, first, I want you to consider the following political fact: during his two presidential campaigns, Obama was the primary political beneficiary of the birther “investigations.”
Obama didn’t want the birther activists to go away for the same reason that, in 1972, Nixon didn’t want the long-haired, pot-smoking, hippie war protestors to go away.
At the time, I really had no idea whether the birthers were on to something serious or not, but as time went by it became increasingly clear that Obama was using the issue to paint his opponents as nuts and kooks. Like Nixon wanted to create associations between hippie war protestors and Democrat candidates, Obama wanted to create associations between birthers and Republican candidates. Most Republican politicians avoided the bait.”
This is pure, one-hundred-percent your personal opinion, w zero facts to back it up. I challenged this assertions & provided FACTS to show that in fact the exact opposite was true. You responded w this:
“Try to picture yourself in a courtroom, standing before a judge. He’s asking you to prove your case, to put on your evidence that Obama was born outside of the United States.
What do you do?”
I said you changed the subject, & you are either too dysfunctional in your thinking to realize that’s what you did or else you intentionally misrepresented it.
Now first admit you changed the subject. That is step one. Next, provide at least a shred of evidence to back your original assertion. Stay away from polls. They prove the exact opposite of what you said. Find your evidence elsewhere. Just be aware that if you can’t do better than simply stating your opinion while pretending it is fact, You Lose.
The absence of evidence of a foreign birth led some of the birthers to shift their focus from the "foreign born" claim (for which there exists no evidence ) to the claim that a natural born citizen status requires that both of a person's parents be citizens at the time of the person's birth. This claim, which might be known as the Vattel hoax, appears to be every bit as kooky and nutty as the foreign birth claim.
There are folks out there who have benefited financially from both branches of birtherism through fundraising, book sales, etc. However, when it comes to political benefits, no one (no one in the world) has benefited from birtherism more than Obama himself.
Thus, it was a win-win proposition for the birthers (at least some of them) and for Obama. Unfortunately, the losers were the American people.
I suppose the losers would also include those gullible souls who got sucked into becoming emotionally invested in the Birthermania craze. To this day, some of them still wonder why, why, why hasn't the Supreme Court intervened to correct this monstrous constitutional crime??? Why does the Chief Justice keep administering the oath to Obama when it's not required of him to do so? Why do the Justices keep showing up at Obama inaugurations?? Why do the courts punish the brave lawyers who so clearly demonstrate that the Constitution has been trashed like never before?? Why do people think we're crackpots???
Like I said, it will all fade away by 2016.