You continue to prop up your assertion that Obama was born in Hawaii with the statement from the Hawaiian Health Director, but you're willfully ignoring the point that that statement is not hard evidence of fact. It's simply a bureaucrat's press statement. Nothing more.
You can argue that "she wouldn't lie, would she?", but that would just be propping up your already weak supporting article with a huge assumption.
For all of your posting on this thread, you have not once provided a single shred of real evidence to support your contentions. You argue vociferously, I'll give you that, but you'd be shown to your seat in a court of law within three minutes.
Back up your assertions with some solid evidence, or sit down. And, no, we don't want to hear your already debunked "evidence" for the umpteenth time. Where's your proof?
“You continue to prop up your assertion that Obama was born in Hawaii with the statement from the Hawaiian Health Director,”
... that was just ONE of SEVEN points of evidence pointing to Obama’s birth in Honolulu ...
” but you’re willfully ignoring the point that that statement is not hard evidence of fact. It’s simply a bureaucrat’s press statement. Nothing more.”
Which is like calling any official document ‘just a piece of paper’. Actually, this statement has a lot of weight as it comes from a state official in charge of records. Her credibility and career is on the line if she deviates from truth. People like this are in the position to know the truth and she simply made a statement about what Obama’s records show. There really is no reason to doubt this, unless you concoct some wide conspiracy to deceive. If for example, Obama’s records did not show him being born in Honolulu, like some suspected, she could have just stayed silent.
“You can argue that “she wouldn’t lie, would she?”, but that would just be propping up your already weak supporting article with a huge assumption.”
It’s not a huge assumption at all, since every vital records office in the country is based on the SAME assumption. If this is not believable evidence then every official birth record in the country is suspect. Claims that she is being dishonest are just baseless and come from some assumption of political tampering. That’s circular logic (”If she says nothing its proof something is amiss, if she validates the official story, its proof she is in on the fraud.”) you can get to any loopy conspiracy theory with that mindset. At some point common sense view has to take over.
Again, I dont take her statement as sole proof, but as solid evidence if corroborated by other facts (which it is) and lack of realistic alternative scenario (nobody has explained how/why state of hawaii birth records would show a non-US birthplace for Obama).
“For all of your posting on this thread, you have not once provided a single shred of real evidence to support your contentions.”
Baloney. You are engaged in the fallacy of calling evidence that doesnt convince you ‘not evidence’. The state of Hawaii making an on-the-record statement saying Obama was born in Hawaii *IS* evidence. it’s your choice to disbelieve or dismiss evidence, but dont call it ‘not a shread of evidence’.
This is evidence too...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
You can dismiss all the evidence, you can have some excuse for discounting it, but dismissing the evidence shared and then claiming ‘there is no evidence’ is fallacious.
If people are bound and determined not to be convinced, then there is no evidence that will be sufficient proof for them. So be it. You can lead a horse to water ...
