The radical left screaming birthers is getting old

Mods PLEASE move this bullshit to the conspiracy forum

 

The irony of recovering birthers pleading to stop mentioning birtherism evoking the lunacy of dormant birthers in this thread is precious.

Next, thing, them liberals'll be tellin' yuh Hahwaaee is ay state!​

 

Actually, according to her, she accidently mixed up Obama's and his father's places of birth because they had the same name, and most sources simply called them both Obama and not Obama Sr. and Jr. She hadn't met Obama and knew nothing about him before being assigned to write the biography, so she accidently wrote his father's place of birth as his, and didn't realize her mistake until after it was released.

 

Ah, a pamphlet put out by Obama's publicist, that should have been proof read by someone before it was published, SAID he was born in Kenya. An intelligent person might even think that Obama might read it before something about his life was published. Calling such a glaring error a "mistake" is a bit more than suspicious. Also, production of a phony birth certificate does not require a time machine, just a clerk that can use an extra $10,000 under the table.

Oh, Trump's collusion with the Russians is a FACT? There is EVIDENCE? Yet, the investigation stumbles on with mass arrests for lying about what they had for breakfast.

Oh, you are a Lefty. Come out of the closet.

 

Let's try a little logic. Obama's publicist produces a pamphlet about his life. Don't you think someone would proof read it? Don't you think Obama might like to proof read it to make sure it was correct? Did you notice that it was produced in 1991? Is it possible that 1991 was well before there was any thought of his running for President? Do you think that, at that time, they might have ACCIDENTALLY have based that pamphlet on the TRUTH?

 

No one is denying the existence of the pamphlet. No one.

Not really. Have you ever been around the publishing industry? This kind of stuff happens all of the time. Hell, I had a friend who published a SF novel and the entire book summary and cover art are completely inaccurate.

You'd have to pay off more than just the clerk for this particular conspiracy theory.

Another straw man. I never said Trump. I said his CAMPAIGN. We know for a fact that Kushner, Junior, Manafort and Papadopoulos were approached with the offer to collude and that they pursued it.

If you are ready to learn what libertarianism is, I can offer some reading material. Or video, if that is more your preference.

 

And, of course, there was no thought about Obama proof reading it before something about his life was published. Right!

Did you notice that the pamphlet was published in 1991? Is it possible that 1991 was well before there was any thought that he might run for President? Is it possible that they ACCIDENTALLY printed the TRUTH?

 

Your theory makes no sense. You are trying to argue, on the one hand, that his parents KNEW he would run and that this would be an issue, even before he was born, but then you say stuff like the above.

 

The pamphlet was published in 1991. Was that BEFORE any thought of him running for President? Could they have thought, at the time, that the truth was okay?

So, I've published 4 SF books. I received proof copies that I was responsible for checking.

Why would you have to pay off more than one person to put a phony piece of paper in a book? Why do you deem it impossible to pay off more than one person?

People in Trump's campaign were offered dirt on Hillary and it didn"t pan out

 

Again, you can't have it both ways. You want us to believe that his parents knew he would run for President even before he was born, but no one thought of him running for in 1991. It makes no sense.

Yes, and sometimes even checking isn't enough. Hell, I went to a panel once with a romance author who's editor had decided to change a child character into a raccoon instead, but forgot to take out one of the speaking lines, resulting in a talking raccoon at one point. Publishing isn't a flawless field. Mistakes happen every day. I've caught mistakes in Stephen King books before.

[quote[Why would you have to pay off more than one person to put a phony piece of paper in a book? Why do you deem it impossible to pay off more than one person?[/quote]I don't deem it impossible to pay off more than one person. I deem it improbable, and intellectually dishonest to believe without evidence, that his parents knew he would run for president and faked both a birth certificate and birth announcement in order to facilitate that (despite you elsewhere saying that no one knew he would run even as late as 1991), and got multiple levels of the government in on the conspiracy without any leaks.

Have you heard of Occam's razor? What's more likely, that his parents knew before his birth that he would run for president and orchestrated a massive conspiracy theory to pull it off . . . or a publisher made a mistake . . . that she admitted to?

Well, that is their latest excuse. First they said they never met with or plotted with Russians, then they said they did but that their plan didn't pan out. And you are free to believe the people who have lied to you about every other aspect of this incident if you wish. It doesn't even really matter. You've lost the point. You tried comparing birtherism to the Russia investigation. In the case of the Russia investigation, motive, opportunity and even an attempt have been established. It isn't intellectually honest to compare that to birtherism, which states that the motive existed even before he was born (while also claiming that the motive couldn't have existed in 1991), has shown no opportunity (because opportunity would involve a massive conspiracy theory that) and certainly hasn't established an attempt.

If you can show that his parents had motive to prep him for the Presidency even before his birth (which would require some knowledge that he would be a candidate), that they had the means to set up such a conspiracy, and that they DEFINITELY TRIED TO DO SO, then you'd have something comparable to the Russia investigation. You don't have anything remotely close, there is a hell of a lot more reason to put stock in the Russia investigation than in birtherism, and I think you know that, whether or not you are willing to admit it.

 

Ah, where did you get the idea that I said his parents would have to know he would run for President before he was born? I said nor implied nothing of the kind.

The pamphlet came out in 1991, before any thought of him running for President. They, probably, printed the truth in that pamphlet. When they get around to his running for President, they call the pamphlet a "mistake" and get a phony Hawaiian birth certificate into the files. Nothing about this is impossible. Maybe improbable, but not impossible.

 

So how, then, do you explain the birth announcement?

Then why were they saying he was born in Hawaii before 1991?

Improbable to the point that there is no rational justification for believing it, only superstition and wishful thinking.

 

I don't deem it impossible to pay off more than one person. I deem it improbable, and intellectually dishonest to believe without evidence, that his parents knew he would run for president and faked both a birth certificate and birth announcement in order to facilitate that (despite you elsewhere saying that no one knew he would run even as late as 1991), and got multiple levels of the government in on the conspiracy without any leaks.

Have you heard of Occam's razor? What's more likely, that his parents knew before his birth that he would run for president and orchestrated a massive conspiracy theory to pull it off . . . or a publisher made a mistake . . . that she admitted to?

Well, that is their latest excuse. First they said they never met with or plotted with Russians, then they said they did but that their plan didn't pan out. And you are free to believe the people who have lied to you about every other aspect of this incident if you wish. It doesn't even really matter. You've lost the point. You tried comparing birtherism to the Russia investigation. In the case of the Russia investigation, motive, opportunity and even an attempt have been established. It isn't intellectually honest to compare that to birtherism, which states that the motive existed even before he was born (while also claiming that the motive couldn't have existed in 1991), has shown no opportunity (because opportunity would involve a massive conspiracy theory that) and certainly hasn't established an attempt.

If you can show that his parents had motive to prep him for the Presidency even before his birth (which would require some knowledge that he would be a candidate), that they had the means to set up such a conspiracy, and that they DEFINITELY TRIED TO DO SO, then you'd have something comparable to the Russia investigation. You don't have anything remotely close, there is a hell of a lot more reason to put stock in the Russia investigation than in birtherism, and I think you know that, whether or not you are willing to admit it.[/QUOTE]

Where the Hell are you people getting the idea that I said his parents had to know he would run for President before he was born? Are you smoking something again?

The pamphlet comes out in 1991 with the truth and when they think about his running, they call the pamphlet a "mistake" and get a phony birth certificate into the files. Not impossible.

I can proof read a 105,000 word novel and Obama can't proof read a pamphlet? Is this your endorsement of his incompetence?

 

Again I ask: why else would they put a birth announcement in the paper saying that he was born in Hawaii? Your theory makes literally no sense. Is this another birther time travel theory?

Except you assume he had no need for a birth certificate for anything before 1991. Which makes no sense. You also can't explain why his parents were saying he was born in the US well before 1991. Your theory makes no sense. It is completely divorced from reality. I don't smoke, but it sounds like you have more than enough to share.

Endorsement for his incompetence? I called for his impeachment. I'm not sure how you don't know this, but mistakes like this happen all of the time in publishing. They are common. A lot more common than time traveling parents.

 

Maybe they lied for economic reasons. Newspapers will print anything of such a minor nature without fact checking. Sort of like the MSM broadcasting anything today.

 

What economic reasons?

 

Matbe they lied for economic reasons.

 

See post #143.

 

Where would you rater live, Kenya or the U.S.?

This is fun, to tell the truth, I have no idea where he was born and I really don't care, but irritating Lefties is fun.

 

He wouldn't have had to be born in the U.S. to live in the U.S. He wouldn't even have had to be born in the U.S. for citizenship. His mom was a citizen. Your "economic reasons" excuse makes no sense. Care to try again? Also, since you are still having trouble: https://www.libertarianism.org/guides/introduction-libertarianism

 

Nothing. His certificate of live birth was already shown. Show us yours now.

 

yes, we know you refuse to accept reality, and would rather dwell in the batshit crazy delusions of the birther mind, but that doesn't actually change reality.

Obama didn't write it. He has never, anywhere in his entire life, in any way shape or form, ever said he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

 

why is this bullshit still here, and not in the conspiracy forum with the rest of the birther threads?

 

I couldn't care less, I just love twisting your shorts. Tag!

 

but you aren't. All you are doing is making yourself look silly.