“In other words, they try to paint you as an Obot, in the same manner you try to paint me as an Obot, when the reality is that Birtherism isn’t a left-right, Conservative-Liberal issue.’
You’re making this too easy. No, the Obot designation is not the same. I have a long history of advancing conservatism and criticizing liberalism and Obama. They call me an Obot simply because they don’t think clearly/all that well. Unable to defend their theory on a factual basis, they fall back on the only thing they know: smears.
In your case, I’m willing to be persuaded. Lets see your top three or four pro-conservative/anti-liberal posts. Followed by your top three or four take-downs of the liar in the Oval Office. If they’re sufficiently convincing, I will retract the Obot tag.
‘And that book didn’t get written along those lines, right? Now, let us ask what might be a prime reason why the book concept you’re suggesting this agent was pitching didn’t get written from the “born in Kenya” angle. Here’s an obvious answer: because BHO II wasn’t born in Kenya!! And proof of that is found in the year-prior media reports (Times, Post, Tribune) stating that the President of the HLR was born in Hawaii.’
Do you advance this because you’re an Obot shill, or because you genuinely can’t think clearly. Obama accepted the $ to write the book. So your theory is he swindled the publisher, intending from the beginning not to write a single paragraph because he knowingly promoted a fraud? Is this really the best you’ve got?
Face it. Obama took the $ to write the book. Not only that, but he took a second large chunk of $ to write the same book. The reason it didn’t get written is not because, having banked all that cash, Obama sat around day in and day out thinking, ‘I can’t possibly write the book I’ve been paid to write; I wasn’t born in Kenya.’. Do you have any idea how STUPID this is?
I’ll say it one more time. He took the $. He took the $ to write the born-in-Kenya book. If he couldn’t write it because it wasn’t true, he wouldn’t have taken the $. That would be fraud. The reason he didn’t write is because he’s lazy [as per his fellow lecturers at the UoC], dysfunctional, and a drug user. He doesn’t think well enough or write nearly well enough to pull off such a project. [Trust me, you don’t want me to demonstrate w examples just how disastrously Obama writes. You just don’t.]
What did they spike your Kook Aid with, CpnHook? You’ve gone beyond not making sense. You’re in an alternative universe.
Here’s a real shocker, Hook. I can tell the difference between conservative anti-birthers and Obot anti-birthers. This is the point Obots just cannot grasp. Like Obama, like progs in general, they assume birthers are very, very stupid. Too stupid by far to grasp the concept that there are Obot anti-birthers and conservative anti-birthers. I have a long history of recognizing the latter. Actually, I have a very long history of recognizing BOTH. I’ve expressed where I think you fit on the scale. However, I’ll await your passionate pro-conservative posts & your scathing Obama critiques before reiterating my views. Perhaps the ‘auuthenticity’ [good liberal word, no?] of your (prior) staunchly conservative posts will win me over.
Oh, the irony . . .
Me: And that book didn’t get written along those lines, right? Now, let us ask what might be a prime reason why the book concept you’re suggesting this agent was pitching didn’t get written from the “born in Kenya” angle. Here’s an obvious answer: because BHO II wasn’t born in Kenya!! And proof of that is found in the year-prior media reports (Times, Post, Tribune) stating that the President of the HLR was born in Hawaii.’ You: * * * Obama accepted the $ to write the book.
Yes, but why is it to be supposed "the book" had as some central premise or key fact that Obama was born in Kenya? You assume this without proof. Why on earth would Obama in 1991 -- having it just been reported by major media the year prior that he was born in Hawaii -- be discussing some book proposal that pitches a contrary birth narrative? The book Obama wrote was a memoir about Obama's childhood and life influences. None of us bloody remembers anything about our birth or the first few years of life. Kenya versus Hawaii is irrelevant to the thrust of the narrative, which takes importance only from the start of Obama's recollected years.
So your theory is he swindled the publisher, intending from the beginning not to write a single paragraph because he knowingly promoted a fraud?
So in addition to heaping lot of ad hominem, you are good at erecting Strawman Arguments.
My theory is that no one in 1991 -- Obama, agent, publisher in particular here -- is discussing a book proposal which has "born in Kenya" as a key component, given that in 1990 "born in Hawaii" was reported.
I’ll say it one more time. He took the $. He took the $ to write the born-in-Kenya book.
You can say it all you like. The claim that it was ever meant to be a "born in Kenya" book exists in your mind only.
You’re in an alternative universe.
I'm in a universe where major media reported in 1990 that Obama was born in Hawaii. And in that universe that 'born in Hawaii' statement is corroborated by the statement made by Obama's [step]parents in 1968 when they applied for his Indonesian schooling. And that is further corroborated by the INS files on BHO, Sr. And that is further corroborated by the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcements. And all of this is most certainly corroborated by the statements of officials of the State of Hawaii attesting that Obama was born in Hawaii. And under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution of the U.S. (which also exists in the universe I inhabit) the latter pretty much definitively answers the birth question.