It is a testimony to the depth and singularity of your dishonesty that even now you won’t admit it. I do get a laugh, though, at how you attempt to substitute personal insults for facts and evidence. That is childish and weak...but highly entertaining.
So I won’t have to go through the whole thing again, I have cut and pasted the lie. Even though you are incapable of admitting it, others can see it for what it is:
‘For something like the ten millionth time, here is what you said:
“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[sic (should have read ‘Sr)]. So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
It is a LIE. You lied. You look ridiculous trying to bluff your way past it. You LIED.’
Iow, Hook, the testimony you told me was ‘out there’ is precisely what is not out there. You seem incapable of processing that fact. But it’s so easy. If what you said was true, you could either post the exact quotes [of the testimony] or else link the biographical info in question. If it is not true, that info is nonexistent. [The answer is B, nonexistent.]
How can you not grasp this???
When you defend a pathological liar, such as Obama, your own integrity is the first thing you lose.
NO! It should NOT have read "Sr." I wrote "Jr" and intended it to be Jr. You prove my point you can't read what I write without paraphrasing and changing what I say.
. . . So the sort of testimony you appear to be seeking is out there.”
Iow, Hook, the testimony you told me was ‘out there’ is precisely what is not out there. You seem incapable of processing that fact.
It is. The author interviewed friends and family of Stanley Ann and got their input, what I termed "testimony." And that included details about her mother-son relationship with Obama, JR. That was my point. And it's a true point. If you want a link, here's a link . You can buy the book and read for yourself. Or you can simply observe that quite a number of the 150 plus reviews note the author went and interviewed friends and family and that the author documents the mother-son relationship with Obama, JR.
No lie.
But, again:
"But, come now, Hawaii's verification of Obama's birth facts is HIGHLY RELEVANT to the question of Obama's birth; so relevant, in fact, that it moots your inquiry into things like "photos of the birth home" or "persons who witnessed Stanley Ann pregnant" (though Dr. Sinclair obviously was one such person). "
I predicted you would duck that one again, and you didn't disappoint.
You lack the intellectual capacity and/or forthrightness to engage in debate. When you duck my central point 20 plus times, you lose the debate. Period. End of discussion.