It is just fine with me that you have your beliefs about the literary agent’s statement. Its your belief versus her statement.
I’ve already made my point, “Obama born in Hawaii” was in major newspapers in profiles where he was actually interviewed as new President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review a year before the publisher’s blurb. That’s my point and its an indisputable fact since anyone can read those profiles online.
It is my opinion that folks in the “Obama is ineligible movement” are unwitting dupes for Obama due to chronic cases of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The birther issue helped Obama get elected and reelected. Liberals love victimization and Obama gets to play the victim, as recently as earlier this week in the incident that this thread is concerning.
It is Obama who solidifies his base by pointing out how those evil, racist conservatives don’t believe that he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 and it has worked like a charm for him for seven years now (Obama announced his candidacy in February, 2007). No one has presented probative evidence of an alternative scenario to any Trier of Fact, anywhere in the United States.
There have now been 335 lawsuits and appellate rulings on Obama’s eligibility. The “Obama is eligible” position has prevailed in every single one of those judicial rulings.
I’m with Sarah Palin on this issue. She speaks for me: “I don’t question Obama’s faith and his citizenship and those are distractions. What we (conservatives) are concerned about is the policies coming out of his administration in terms of big government versus private sector. So the faith, the birth certificate...others can engage in that kind of rhetoric. Its distracting, it gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”
Amen, Sarah, amen. You are now free to call Governor Palin an unintelligent Obot for disagreeing with your opinion.
‘It is just fine with me that you have your beliefs about the literary agent’s statement. Its your belief versus her statement.’
It would be, if her statement made any sense. I demonstrated that it doesn’t. It was put out solely for the benefit of Obots, who will believe anything and pass it along. Even the intelligent Obots, however, know her statement is stupid. Otherwise she would have been asked where she got the original ‘fact’ that she forgot to fact check. The reason she’s never been asked that pathetically obvious question is because even Obots—the ones who are still able to think their way out of a wet paper bag—know it’s an idiotic excuse for which there is not and can never be any realistic or believable answer.
I’m sorry to find out you’re this deep in the Kool Aid pitcher. That is very sad.
I’ve already made my point, “Obama born in Hawaii” was in major newspapers in profiles where he was actually interviewed as new President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review a year before the publisher’s blurb. That’s my point and its an indisputable fact since anyone can read those profiles online.
_______________________
Yes, “anyone can read those profiles online.” Can you, however, point anyone to where they can read these profiles in original paper format? Not in ANY digital form, such as a photo purported to be of an original document?
As we all know, photos can be photoshopped. Microfilm can be cut, spliced, and even recreated without the splices showing. Online profiles can easily be edited using ubiquitous software. Where can “anyone” go to see an actual decades-old newspaper or magazine?