Posted on 09/23/2015 10:18:47 PM PDT by Ray76
Chris Matthews reported back on December 18th, 2007 that 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama was born in Indonesia and has an Islamic background.
Video at link
(Excerpt) Read more at birtherreport.com ...
LOL
Take your Prozac and you’ll be fine and avoid being demoralized by having a discussion on the Internet.
Darn it. You just caused me to cough out a sip of coffee all over my monitor.
No, you just found an old Maraniss-Obot-suck-up-propaganda piece laced with lies, and then you strutted around thumping your chest and crowing that you had placed SAD in HI at the crucial time. Well that means she was in HI while she was in Seattle. I.e.: if this obot-propaganda drivel you made such a spectacle of yourself over is true, then she was taking classes in Seattle while living with Obama Sr and Little Barry in HI.
So explain what’s going on. Explain how this great Maraniss ‘find’ of yours is true. Are the transcripts all forged, and part of some large, creepy conspiracy? Was SAD actually not in Seattle when all the evidence says she was, but rather was she in fact living in HI with Obama Sr after all?
Or if not, why did you waste so much time on demonstrably obot propaganda lies? Natufian, you got some ‘splainin’ to do. Let’s hear it.
You sound like a sad, pathetic fourteen yo, you misfit, washed up obot troll. If you’re not careful, people are going to start feeling sorry for you. That would hardly help your cause, would it?
Hawaiian law permits birth certificates to be issued on the "say so" of others. Ergo, Obama could have a birth certificate created by his Grandmother for a birth that did not actually occur in Hawaii.
Please do try and keep up. Better yet, realize the topic is beyond your comprehension level, and go away.
You are just a childish noise machine.
Don't see the word "Original" used in the message to which I was responding. Mr. Noise Machine is now introducing it, and asking how I can't understand what it means.
I tracked the message thread all the way back to message 187, and the word "original" doesn't appear in that message. The word "original" isn't used in message 193 either. It wasn't used in message 240, which is the message to which you are replying, but when we get to your latest response, (message 245) suddenly the word appears in your comment five times, with you acting like it is the central point of dispute.
Again, you are a childish f*cking noise machine, who just pumps out sh*t, and expects people to take you seriously.
Let's just make my response simple. Since your latest pack of mouthing is contingent upon the usage of the word "original", and that does not seem to be a fact in evidence that I can see anywhere in the recent exchange, I simply reject your premise as false, and therefore I need put forth no further effort into responding to your sewage stream.
(Cpn Hook's methodology depicted below.)
I may be mistaken, but I don't recall them EVER claiming that the "original" document had been put forth, and that is THE EXACT NATURE of my bitchfest regarding the worthlessness of Hawaii's pronouncements. Indeed, they always have a dodge to allow them to say it isn't the "original."
If you keep up the name-calling, one of these decades you’re going to hurt one of my feelings. My money’s on you hurting my feeling of joy.
At least you sound sober today. When you posted a reply yesterday on a subject totally unrelated to the comments you claimed to be responding to, it looked like a sad case of drunk posting for sure. But today you are sounding just like the same old immature, has-been, washed up, none too bright, boring obot troll.
Tip: hitting the bottle and posting are a bad mix.
are = is
Cpn Hook is one of those fellows who can say nothing in a thousand words. If he has a point in there somewhere, it is usually lost in the forest of nonsense and chaff surrounding it.
Namely, if granny D. registered Little Barry’s birth, as many believe, then there would be something on file for Obama stating he was born in HI.
There would be something on file that incorrectly indicates he was born in Hawaii. Most people assume that when you have a Hospital of birth, and a delivery Doctor, then that must mean you were born at that place and delivered by that man.
This is usually, but not necessarily true. If Obama was born in Canada, he could still have a document that "indicates" he was born in Hawaii. Grandma could have created it for him initially, and he had up to a year to be looked at by a physician and solidify the document.
So any official who said Obama’s file—however they worded it—indicated he was born in HI, would be telling the truth.
Depends on the nature of what is in the file. If it is clearly a hand written affidavit of an unattended birth, it could contain all the information currently reflected on the document, but it wasn't actually generated by a Hospital in the usual way.
This is why the caginess of Hawaiian officials is so objectionable. They ACT like they are hiding something. They could have just came out and said "That is a copy of the ORIGINAL document in our records."
They never say that. They dance around it in every way you can conceive, but they never come out and admit that it is an accurate copy of the ORIGINAL document.
Later, when the cut and paste latter-day BC was created, it would be the “original BC”—i.e.: the first actual BC he ever had. So anyone saying, ‘this is a copy of the original BC,’ would be speaking accurately, no?
That could be, but there are so many possible permutations to this thing, that it is difficult to say which one is probable or accurate. This is what we get into when we parse words with legal technicality gobbledygook.
In this case, it still hinges on the meaning of the word "original" and in what context.
This thing with Obama's birth certificates is like the critique I saw of the movie "12 Angry men." The author of the critique pointed out how the Jury foreman took each piece of evidence and showed that it was not necessarily conclusive that the defendant committed the crime.
_01.jpg)
What the movie glossed over was the PATTERN of evidence simply defied credibility. That all of it together implied an unbelievable chain of improbability for the defendant to be not guilty.
And thus is it with Obama's legitimacy. They try to hide too much, and too strenuously, and then spout all sorts of legal technicality crap as to why they shouldn't have to prove his legitimacy.
Again, like the Defendant in 12 angry men, this is a asking too much of credibility to think he's innocent.
Thank you for that informative answer! It was quite insightful, and gave me a much better grasp of the various issues in question. After explaing a number of finer points involved in the BC/language parsing discussion [the kind of parsing that, incidentally, Bill Clinton turned into an art form, while his fellow pols took copious notes] you touched on one of my long time obot issues.
Namely, their obsessive compulsive, outright pathological need to compartmentalize. On this point, your analogy is SUPERB. I can’t recall how many pieces of incriminating evidence there were in Twelve Angry Men. It’s not relevant. What IS relevant is the practically unquantifiable # of issues, contradictions, conflicts, anomalies, black holes, abnormalities, irregularities, misdirection, sealed records and outright lies associated with Obama and his murky past. I doubt anyone has the time to amass them all, categorize them, and maintain an up to date list. The volume is simply staggering.
Yet here’s the thing. Normally an obot will tell you there are no problems of any kind with Obama’s past/history and records. But if a conservative pounds away at one of the issues to the point that not even the obots can deny it, they will smugly declaim to each other, “It’s all they’ve got.”
Then a few weeks or a month down the road, if a totally different issue gets pounded, guess what? They obots say, “Hehe—it’s all they’ve got.”
Iow, obots are incapable of storing ANY issue re Obama and his records, etc, in their minds/memories. Rather, their brains are like etch-a-sketches. Every time they are confronted with sufficient evidence to establish a problem, the whistle past the graveyard with, ‘it’s all they’ve got.’ Then they shake their etch-a-sketch and immediately forget that problem ever existed.
And so ad infinitum. If they had sharper minds with analytical capability, they wouldn’t be obots. As with your Twelved Angry Men analogy, they would quickly realize there are just too many issues, FAR too many. But given their instant-amnesia approach, their default is to see no problem at all, and only under duress do they even resort to, ‘it’s all they’ve got.’
I’ve said it before. No wonder they’re obots. With minds like that, what else could they be?
‘[Name] is one of those fellows who can say nothing in a thousand words. If he has a point in there somewhere, it is usually lost in the forest of nonsense and chaff surrounding it.’
I stopped reading this individual’s posts when it became clear that all he has is some rote material in one very narrow area. If he ventures outside his tightly bounded specialty he is a fish out of water, flopping and flailing hopelessly. Since reading the same rote comments repeated over and over indefinitely is boring, I skip his posts lock, stock and barrel.
I’d ask you to ping me if he ever says anything fresh or interesting, but I know there is no point. He has learned his lesson about straying from his one and only narrow, repetitious topic, and will not a second time attempt to sound coherent on a different, more general subject. (I do give him this, however: he recognizes his limitations. That’s more than some can do, anyway.)
You're welcome, and yes it is a hodgepodge of competing possibilities. That's why it's so difficult for people to get their heads around it. They aren't certain about exactly what it is they ought to be looking for.
And so ad infinitum. If they had sharper minds with analytical capability, they wouldn’t be obots. As with your Twelved Angry Men analogy, they would quickly realize there are just too many issues, FAR too many. But given their instant-amnesia approach, their default is to see no problem at all, and only under duress do they even resort to, ‘it’s all they’ve got.’
I think it's fake amnesia. I think it's real and intentional pretending to forget.
I have been pounding the word "Original" for the last several years, and Cpn Hook seems to think he alone has just now thought of it. No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear. Everything is "Abstract" or "In our Files" or any other sort of wording short of declaring it a copy of an original record.
I personally think they are trying to cover up, among other things, a ~1971-1972 adoption or guardianship.
Birthers have managed to come up with one measly example from the turn of the last century, which arose under circumstances quite distinguishable from Obama's. Hardly an impressive argument. Though you're still off the mark in the end. More below.
Better yet, realize the topic is beyond your comprehension level, and go away.
Speaking of comprehension level, let me see if I can dumb this down a bit to your level so you might stand a chance of getting it.
The Territorial laws contemplated (Sec. 57-8) that in the usual case the birth information would be obtained from the attending physician and/or the mother. The laws did then go on to add that if neither of those were able to provide the information, then in that case the Registrar could procure the information from another person.
But now the shrewd person will ask: Is there a way to tell from the Birth Certificate which issued whether this was a "doctor/mother case" or a "granny/other-person case."
Well, gosh, yes there is. Because on the Birth Certificate one can observe . . . (now pay close attention) . . . information about the Hawaiian birth hospital, the doctor's name and signature, and the mother's name and signature!!
So from this it's pretty clear that Granny Dunham was not registering a supposed home birth (one she claimed was took place in Hawaii but REALLY (wink, wink) occurred somewhere else. It's overly bizarre to posit that Granny went in to claim a home birth and what emerged was a Birth Certificate with a hospital and attending physician's names (and signature with the latter).
Yeah, the Chinese guy got a birth certificate based on the testimony of some friends. But he got one that simply stated a birth in the location; he didn't get one with hospital and doctor.
That's how one can tell the difference.
Got it now, DumbDumb?
Try #235. No doubt later on it's harder to find it when you skipped past it originally when in you're frequent "I'm not bothering" mode. In that post, there it is, separated into it's own paragraph and put into quotation marks, thus making it pretty easy to see:
"Not when further below Onaka says this is based on 'the original Certificate of Live Birth.'"
Since your latest pack of mouthing is contingent upon the usage of the word "original", and that does not seem to be a fact in evidence that I can see anywhere in the recent exchange, I simply reject your premise as false, and therefore I need put forth no further effort
This excuse coming from someone else might warrant little more than a shoulder-shrug. But you pull the "I'm not replying" routine even when you know what I've written and I'm repeatedly rubbing your nose in it. So no matter whether you've donned your "selective reading" glasses or whether your doing your ostrich pose and burying your head completely -- the result is the same.
Now? No, no, oh dim-witted one, I was pointing out on this Forum that Hawaii had used the term "original" in relationship to the birth certificate on file no later than 2004.
No, we've been looking for the word "Original" to appear in anything from Hawaii, and the word never seems to appear.
For someone who so loves to posture how extensively he's done the research and immersed himself in these topics (pointing out for a much longer time here than I have), you are consistently clueless. Here, you can read Dr. Onaka's words yourself:
Now, this document only has 5 sentences. Hint: one of them contains the words "the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State Department of Health."
Let's see this time if you can find it.
Make the date above “no later than 2014.”
Agree about the hodgepodge. There has never been such an effort to cover up facts and history as with Obama. I recall reading recently that even the obot biographies give three different dates for DAD’s alleged first marriage. When even the professional writers most dedicated to serving Obama’s best interests give wildly conflicting info on so basic a fact, you know something sketchy is afoot.
I used to give obots a lot more credit than I do now. That is, I would formerly have agreed that they have intentional amnesia. But I just can’t see it that way any more. They look more like robotic sycophants who have internalized a couple of ‘truths’ and who cannot see past them.
Namely, Obama is honest, birthers are crazy, and obots are brilliant.
Within that framework, it is impossible to grasp the many issues with Obama’s lies, contradictions, black hole gaps and anomalous records. So obots just breeze along believing everything is in perfect order, and attributing all the issues to stupid, racist birthers. Ymmv.
Yes, Obama Sr’s ‘71-72 trip to HI is a cipher. He had no $, was in an alcoholic tailspin, and had previously acted as if Little Barry didn’t exist. So why such an expensive HI excursion? Agree with you it must have had to do with getting Barry’s records in order. Hard to explain it any other way. Whatever the result, it couldn’t bear public scrutiny. Hence the rush job cut and paste BC that Trump forced Obama to release a few years ago.
What a lying wreck Obama is. The obots can have their shameful, low life job; if they are so enamored of a pathological liar, then they get what they deserve.
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.