SJJRSJJS
Verified User
I love this stuffIt says late 60's that the term "Black African" was used in the USA, not when Obama was born in 1961
POSSIBLE Illegal Alien Voter Fraud Exposed?
- Thread starter SJJRSJJS
- Start date
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
Nice, keep following me around gal, read all my posts, so I can retrain you.
Barracuda
Verified User
Change the subject? Not me! No way. Let's see if YOU can stay on subject after this.
No, SJ,
I am not trying to change the subject.
I was simply pointing out that birthers (you may or may not be one) have tried to come up with dozens of reasons why the b.c. was a forgery (after saying for years that it did not exist!!!) because it had "incorrect" information on it (name of the hospital, etc.) or technical issues (layers). All of those reasons have been debunked. They've been to court many, MANY times and have lost EVERY time.
That process of elimination has resulted in you hanging your argument on one word.
If you have done any genealogical research you know that there are many anomalies in records. I've found my maternal grandfather's LAST name, for example, spelled 3 different ways in various documents. My great grandfather's first name is spelled 3 different ways in different documents. There is often inconsistency in documents and (I bet you'll agree with this) especially when done by govt workers. My paternal grandfather's name is different on my father's birth certificate than it is on granddad's death record. I've found errors and inconsistencies in Census records, too. The name of the ship my Dad immigrated on is different on two different documents. Human error causes mistakes and inconsistencies on records.
So, the fact that you are hanging your argument on one word in a govt document shows how desperate you are to find evidence for your suspicion. That is not a change of subject.
Another example is that you request that I provide proof to disprove your suspicions! You got the wrong guy. If you are happy drawing important conclusions based on nothing more than a suspicion about ONE WORD, please have at it. But I would predict this: If I were to show you a b.c. from the early sixties with a racial classification other than Negroid - as you request - that would not allay your suspicions. So, I'd be wasting my time, now wouldn't I?
But more to the point.
ALL we have so far is your bald (unsubstantiated) assertion that Negroid is the term that "should" have been on the b.c. Your entire argument rests on that, doesn't it? Yet you have provided no proof that it was common practice to put "Negroid" on b.c.s in the US or more particularly, in Hawaii.
With all respect to Wiki, it does not prove your case either. Did I miss "Negroid" in the Wiki article. I don't think so. "Negroid" does NOT appear there. So, the very source YOU bring up does NOT support your point. However, even if that term was included there, it's not as if everyone, everywhere was uniformly using any particular term that was in general usage at a given time.
No, SJ,
I am not trying to change the subject.
I was simply pointing out that birthers (you may or may not be one) have tried to come up with dozens of reasons why the b.c. was a forgery (after saying for years that it did not exist!!!) because it had "incorrect" information on it (name of the hospital, etc.) or technical issues (layers). All of those reasons have been debunked. They've been to court many, MANY times and have lost EVERY time.
That process of elimination has resulted in you hanging your argument on one word.
If you have done any genealogical research you know that there are many anomalies in records. I've found my maternal grandfather's LAST name, for example, spelled 3 different ways in various documents. My great grandfather's first name is spelled 3 different ways in different documents. There is often inconsistency in documents and (I bet you'll agree with this) especially when done by govt workers. My paternal grandfather's name is different on my father's birth certificate than it is on granddad's death record. I've found errors and inconsistencies in Census records, too. The name of the ship my Dad immigrated on is different on two different documents. Human error causes mistakes and inconsistencies on records.
So, the fact that you are hanging your argument on one word in a govt document shows how desperate you are to find evidence for your suspicion. That is not a change of subject.
Another example is that you request that I provide proof to disprove your suspicions! You got the wrong guy. If you are happy drawing important conclusions based on nothing more than a suspicion about ONE WORD, please have at it. But I would predict this: If I were to show you a b.c. from the early sixties with a racial classification other than Negroid - as you request - that would not allay your suspicions. So, I'd be wasting my time, now wouldn't I?
But more to the point.
ALL we have so far is your bald (unsubstantiated) assertion that Negroid is the term that "should" have been on the b.c. Your entire argument rests on that, doesn't it? Yet you have provided no proof that it was common practice to put "Negroid" on b.c.s in the US or more particularly, in Hawaii.
With all respect to Wiki, it does not prove your case either. Did I miss "Negroid" in the Wiki article. I don't think so. "Negroid" does NOT appear there. So, the very source YOU bring up does NOT support your point. However, even if that term was included there, it's not as if everyone, everywhere was uniformly using any particular term that was in general usage at a given time.
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
The threat of getting fired made those Walmart employees wimps blink first and there never really was a Black Friday revolt, it was all Lib girleyman hogwash. They try to impress their FemiNazi cohors, so they might get a piece afterwards, they are so hard up....Ja Ja Ja... I gotta find and post that old Board article about how Lib women control their Lib men with threats of no sex unless they follow the Gals' orders, but these same lib gals still are attracted to Conservative men at the same time.....Touche
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
My Opinion: I am saying that the racial designation word "Negro" should have been used as the Racial determination of Obama's Father as was the custom in legal documents in 1961. Whomever made that recent counterfeit copy was too young to know about descriptions of Races in 1961 and just assumed that the "African" designation was politically correct. These are the types of stupit Lib Demo mistakes that are made, they think that they are sooo intelligent, and that is why they routinely screw things up. You tell me how so many Latinos, who can hardly speak the Kings English are driving around with legal driver's licenses? You know that I have opened up a big can of voting fraud whoop ass. As far as Obama's fake Birth Certificate is concerned, it is just a small part of this National Voter Fraud Scheme using faked birth certificates perpetrated, in my opinion by someone like the extreme Leftist George Soros, of MoveOn.Org and Media Matters, butt it could be any rich Commie.No, SJ,
I am not trying to change the subject.
I was simply pointing out that birthers (you may or may not be one) have tried to come up with dozens of reasons why the b.c. was a forgery (after saying for years that it did not exist!!!) because it had "incorrect" information on it (name of the hospital, etc.) or technical issues (layers). All of those reasons have been debunked. They've been to court many, MANY times and have lost EVERY time.
That process of elimination has resulted in you hanging your argument on one word.
If you have done any genealogical research you know that there are many anomalies in records. I've found my maternal grandfather's LAST name, for example, spelled 3 different ways in various documents. My great grandfather's first name is spelled 3 different ways in different documents. There is often inconsistency in documents and (I bet you'll agree with this) especially when done by govt workers. My paternal grandfather's name is different on my father's birth certificate than it is on granddad's death record. I've found errors and inconsistencies in Census records, too. The name of the ship my Dad immigrated on is different on two different documents. Human error causes mistakes and inconsistencies on records.
So, the fact that you are hanging your argument on one word in a govt document shows how desperate you are to find evidence for your suspicion. That is not a change of subject.
Another example is that you request that I provide proof to disprove your suspicions! You got the wrong guy. If you are happy drawing important conclusions based on nothing more than a suspicion about ONE WORD, please have at it. But I would predict this: If I were to show you a b.c. from the early sixties with a racial classification other than Negroid - as you request - that would not allay your suspicions. So, I'd be wasting my time, now wouldn't I?
But more to the point.
ALL we have so far is your bald (unsubstantiated) assertion that Negroid is the term that "should" have been on the b.c. Your entire argument rests on that, doesn't it? Yet you have provided no proof that it was common practice to put "Negroid" on b.c.s in the US or more particularly, in Hawaii.
With all respect to Wiki, it does not prove your case either. Did I miss "Negroid" in the Wiki article. I don't think so. "Negroid" does NOT appear there. So, the very source YOU bring up does NOT support your point. However, even if that term was included there, it's not as if everyone, everywhere was uniformly using any particular term that was in general usage at a given time.
Barracuda
Verified User
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, SJ.
I enjoy you sharing yours. Entertaining to say the least.
However, you have NOT ONE OUNCE of proof for your suppositions.
As to some facts, I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN a govt document listing a woman born in Jamaica as "African." That was in the 1940's.
So, as I said, the uniformity upon which you base your suspicion and conclusions is non-existent.
I enjoy you sharing yours. Entertaining to say the least.
However, you have NOT ONE OUNCE of proof for your suppositions.
As to some facts, I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN a govt document listing a woman born in Jamaica as "African." That was in the 1940's.
So, as I said, the uniformity upon which you base your suspicion and conclusions is non-existent.
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
Wait until I pull you chain before you open your fly trap, your other Lib Demo girleymen on their cyber chains will pick up bad habits, and try to have an uppity attitude, just like your sorry butt......Ja Ja Ja (Spanish for Ha Ha Ha)
I WIN