I usually just tell them that if they are going to throw a tantrum, I am not going to listen to them. And I don't give them an audience if they cannot compose themselves.
That's true, but those trying to debunk birthers with equally spurious "facts" aren't doing much to move the argument along, as in this gem:
For the "Birthers," it is the fact that the 2007 Hawaii birth certificate released by the Obama campaign last year was not the 1961 original. (FactCheck.org has examined the original 1961 birth certificate and says it has a raised official seal.)
FactCheck, as we all know, "examined" the same certification "released by the Obama campaign" that is "not the 1961 original."
Let me re-phrase that for any lurking debunkers in the media who aren't up to speed: the Certification of Live Birth posted on the internet by the Barack Obama campaign is not the "original" birth certificate. It is an abstract of limited information derived from the original birth certificate, but does not contain all the information on the original certificate. FactCheck examined the same "extract" posted on the internet -- not the original.
If I were a columnist (I hesitate to say journalist), such as this one, who didn't have an elementary grasp of the facts, I'd stay out of the debate. There's way too much useless static, on both sides.
CometBaby, if you’ve got access to facts the rest of us don’t have, please share. I promise to remain composed. In fact, I wish this story would resolve itself one way or the other.
Calling us conspiracy theorists is name calling is it not? Is asking for the transparency we were promised a conspiracy?
Hope I’m not bullying you too much.