What I personally believe in regard to the Obama Legitimacy Question

[zappasguitar]

So says the man who's changed screen names as often as ID has changed Husbands!

Well step up..if I'm the "perfect illustration" then it should be simplicity itself for you to provide some actual PROOF...not just your tired old third party hearsay...right?

Note for all...notice how after having days to find their "evidence", neither the Yurtard or the King of Queens could offer up any proof to back their claims...just as I said would happen.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

wait.....zappa gets busted making a false claim....then wusses out by claiming he can change definitions at will....and then claims i haven't found evidence?

wow....just wow

 

[Damocles]

Did you hope this would clarify that you actually were a birther?

Did you forget to use context and not that the post was a joke in a thread full of them?

Obvious moron is obvious.

 

[Damocles]

I see. Your statement that Barack Obama is a citizen of Indonesia was a joke?

Ha.

Yes, it was a continuing statement quoting Dungheap making a joke as well, FYI Dungheap is NigelTufnel, liberal, and was very definitely making a joke at birthers expense, as was I. If you actually had a capacity to understand things you've read you might have been able to figure all of that out all by yourself.

Personally I think you can, you just play stupid on the internet.

 

[Damocles]

So, any other birther statements you might've made since 2008 are just jokes?

Probably, there are many conversations on it. In this case I was adding to a joke from a liberal, even you are capable of seeing that but just can't get yourself to admit that you are being deliberately obtuse for trolling purposes.

 

[DamnYankee]

I figured I would post this, maybe it will ease Onceler's and Nigel's minds...

I believe that if Obama had not been legitimate that long before his election some patriotic CIA or FBI employee would have contacted somebody in the Press to release information that would have shown that he was not legitimate. That the absence of such evidence pretty much confirms that he is, and always has been, legitimate.

That, like all the major candidates and people elected as representatives from the republican party, this is a non-issue and that there are more serious issues to cover. I support my representative in dismissing it and working on policy.

It is interesting to watch those who are elected get attacked by both the left as being in "support" of this, and by the "birthers" who think they are in cahoots "for some reason" with Obama. Neither are true.

While it does excite my curiosity, mostly as to what people will believe when somebody in power appears to be "hiding" something, much like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have always excited that same curiosity; it has never been my position that Obama is illegitimately President and I have never made a post that suggested that was my opinion.

I have always maintained that we would eventually get a peek at Obama's long form, and that he may as well get it out there "now" to avoid the buildup that would increase the scope of controversy. If I were on his team I would have suggested he simply obtain and release this long ago so that there wouldn't be eleventy-threeve other documents that he is "hiding" added to the list as it would have pretty much been a non-issue from the get go and would have underscored his willingness to be open and honest, just as he said his Administration would be.

I will admit that I have had fun "poking" the controversy, things like pointing out the "lax" laws suggested by birthers used to obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii, etc., but in almost every case I have always spoken in the terms of "birthers believe", in cases where I haven't it was later in a thread where I had already put forward the "birthers believe" portion, or in threads where I believed that I already had.

Anyway, I hope this will clarify what I actually believe so that Onceler and Nigel can stop "wondering" out loud in threads on the subject.

My position is and always was that after he served as President for a day it didn't matter if he was a natural born citizen or not, since courts would assuredly decide that what has been done is done. Determinination of qualifications should occur well prior to the election and should be an open process.

My concern with The Obama is that he's not forthcoming with the truth, this being the most obvious example. And this from a guy who campaigned on having the most open administration ever. What a fucking crock.

I've got this issue with other prominent Democrats as well. Bill Clinton's health records, Hillary Clinton's college papers, John Kerry's military records.

The hypocrisy from The Left here is simply shameful. George Bush authorized the unconditional release of all his military records and the Libtards hungrily scour them, whining about uncrossed T's and un-dotted I's.

 

[Damocles]

Nice.

So, anytime you've posted something that later appears to be erroneous or contradictory, you can claim it was a joke?

BTW, would you please define 'trolling' for me? I'm not sure what you mean.

Not really, this one was very obvious and only those purposefully ignoring what they can clearly see in order to attempt to troll, badly I may say, would "miss" it.

Trolling, in this case, is when you post something foolish in order to try to get an emotional response from another poster. In this case you attempt to take remarks out of context in the hopes that I will get "angry" at you. It's not going to work.

There are several forms of "trolling" you'll see on this board, this one is one of the more obvious attempts and is the same type of obvious that wolfspinne gives us. It's just attempting to throw stuff out until somebody reacts the way you are seeking.

There is the one where people make up secondary names to post in that are either funny or insulting.

There are others, but I think you get it.

 

[Damocles]

Is this an example of "trolling", then?




Or, perhaps this is?

Or maybe they were 'jokes'?

Neither really, although joking can be considered a form of trolling neither of these fit either of the definitions we put forward here. In these cases, one in which I was simply pointing out what I actually said, and another where I was simply reporting what a different group of people (described as "self-appointed historians") were saying, I wouldn't say I was trolling or joking. Were they designed to elicit emotional responses?

 

[Damocles]

Rtber, I wouldn't say that I never "trolled" when playing with the topic. I found it fascinating and fun. It was a shame when Obama produced the document that I predicted he would produce. While it did give me a chance to see if I was correct (almost 100%, the only thing I wasn't right on was I thought there would be something that he was trying to hide on the document, there really wasn't), it took away a topic that I found immensely entertaining. You could poke people on both sides, the knee-jerk "Obama is a soft flower that can never be criticized or questioned on any topic" responses were as funny as the "he's really from Kenya" responses.

As I said before, in the OP, to me it was interesting. Here I'll add fun. One doesn't make a board like this to always be serious. Nor do I think "trolling" is necessarily a "sin" or "bad". It's just that in this case it won't really work. I'm not going to get angry or reactive. The thread has been fun for me, not annoying, and certainly not emotional.

I particularly enjoyed Nigel's "birther-curious" label, that was brilliant.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Did you forget to use context and not that the post was a joke in a thread full of them?

Obvious moron is obvious.

what post did he refer to? he deleted his post per his usual.

 

[Damocles]

what post did he refer to? he deleted his post per his usual.

He quoted this post:

You forgot Citizen of Indonesia.

But without the context of the post I quoted:

No, he's the Islamo-Kenyan-Socialist-Centrist-CorruptfromChicago-InthepocketofIsrael-WillbowdowntoAhmadinejad love child of Chuck D.

Really, it is quite silly how he deletes most of his posts.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

He quoted this post:



But without the context of the post I quoted:



Really, it is quite silly how he deletes most of his posts.

thanks....he likely deleted it because he finally realized how wrong he is...he does that a lot...deletes a post after being proved wrong or if his post is ignored or doesn't garner the attention he wants...he deletes and then keeps reposting it so it is the last post

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

apparently he is so embarrassed of his posts with damo he deleted all of them

:lol:

 

[zappasguitar]

wait.....zappa gets busted making a false claim....then wusses out by claiming he can change definitions at will....and then claims i haven't found evidence?

wow....just wow

Still waiting on the Amazing Yurskin to back his claim with proof.

Show me where I've EVER claimed I "could change definitions at will"...

And if you have found proof then why oh why isn't it already somewhere in this thread?

Of course that's not how the Amazing Yurskin worls...he can't actually PROVE the things he claims...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

post 33 & 36 unequivocally show zappa claiming he can make up his own definitions...and then change them at will (evolve)....give it up dude...you can make up your definitions and then change them as you go....birther means someone who does not believe obama is eligible. sorry bub....you don't get make up or "evolve" definitions as you go along.

tff...your desperation is palpable zappa...but unfortunately for you, your words convict you and show you're a liar.

see...i back up my claims...unlike you who run away when i ask you to support your claim...e.g, plagiarism etc

 

[Phantasmal]

LOL, this is an entertaining thread.

Zappa's behavior is the perfect illustration of what happens when you habitually lie: it becomes exponentially more difficult to remember which lies were told to whom, until eventually the entire house of bullshit comes tumbling down.

Lying? Where? Habitually? I think you make things up as your go. Please prove this point you have made.

I agree with Zappa, Damo has changed his tune on this number and is now trying to show he didn't. I saw Damo as being a birther, too and now find it hilarious that he is trying to prove he wasn't one, he was just a little curious! Ahahahahahaha

I threw the cackle in for the "girls", they do love it!

 

[zappasguitar]

post 33 & 36 unequivocally show zappa claiming he can make up his own definitions...and then change them at will (evolve)....give it up dude...you can make up your definitions and then change them as you go....birther means someone who does not believe obama is eligible. sorry bub....you don't get make up or "evolve" definitions as you go along.

tff...your desperation is palpable zappa...but unfortunately for you, your words convict you and show you're a liar.

see...i back up my claims...unlike you who run away when i ask you to support your claim...e.g, plagiarism etc

Wrong again Chachi!

As more and more people pushed the "birther' conspiracy further into the spotlight, it cause my definition to evolve.

It's like Damo said...at first he was just curious, but as the issue gained traction, his views changed...or are you going to tell him his views and opinions can't change once he's posted them here?

I didn't think so, you don't hate him with the same sick ferocity that you display towards me every day.

Once again Skippy...It is perfectly acceptable for anyone...EVEN ME to redefine their viewpoint, despite what you may have to say about the matter.

You can get all bent out of shape like you are now...you can spit and piss and moan how I can't change this or that...but it doesn't matter!

note to Kreskin...you still haven't provided any evidence...why am I not surprised?

 

[zappasguitar]

Lying? Where? Habitually? I think you make things up as your go. Please prove this point you have made.

I agree with Zappa, Damo has changed his tune on this number and is now trying to show he didn't. I saw Damo as being a birther, too and now find it hilarious that he is trying to prove he wasn't one, he was just a little curious! Ahahahahahaha

I threw the cackle in for the "girls", they do love it!

You see how they love to try and move the goalposts so we can't debate?

According to Kresk...uhh...I mean Yurt, since what I stated in post 33 isn't EXACTLY the SAME DEFINITION of a Birther that I'd previously held, then I must be lying.

Also...you see how Damo is now trying to claim he was only "joking"?

See how Yurtskin allows Damo to change his opinions and definitions, but I don't get the same courtesy...anyone wonder why?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Wrong again Chachi!

As more and more people pushed the "birther' conspiracy further into the spotlight, it cause my definition to evolve.

It's like Damo said...at first he was just curious, but as the issue gained traction, his views changed...or are you going to tell him his views and opinions can't change once he's posted them here?

I didn't think so, you don't hate him with the same sick ferocity that you display towards me every day.

Once again Skippy...It is perfectly acceptable for anyone...EVEN ME to redefine their viewpoint, despite what you may have to say about the matter.

You can get all bent out of shape like you are now...you can spit and piss and moan how I can't change this or that...but it doesn't matter!

note to Kreskin...you still haven't provided any evidence...why am I not surprised?

that is exactly my point....YOU can simply change the definition of words at will to suit your agenda. that is not the way it works...you don't get to make up definitions as you go...

.sad and pathetic zappa....really. that you would even attempt this and then actually state you do change your definitions as you go, but then declare i haven't shown where you state that because you use the word "evolve" vs. i use "change"

that is not only stupid, it is downright dishonest....but i'm sure you will now come up with a new definition for change and evolve to suit your argument here.

 

[zappasguitar]

that is exactly my point....YOU can simply change the definition of words at will to suit your agenda. that is not the way it works...you don't get to make up definitions as you go...

.sad and pathetic zappa....really. that you would even attempt this and then actually state you do change your definitions as you go, but then declare i haven't shown where you state that because you use the word "evolve" vs. i use "change"

that is not only stupid, it is downright dishonest....but i'm sure you will now come up with a new definition for change and evolve to suit your argument here.

Well tell ya what...you show me the official "definition" of "Birther" as found in Merriam Webster's Dictionary and if what I said is different, then we'll talk.

You see, "birther" isn't a word like "tree"; that's had the same definition for THOUSANDS of years.

So no matter how loudly you shriek and wail and no matter how often you use the same derogatory taunts, your narrow-minded definition isn't necessarily the same definition that everyone else on the planet must use.

What is truly sad is that you are such a control freak you demand that made up words like "Birther" be subjected to YOUR definition and no one else's matters.

Sorry to say Bunky, but that just isn't how the world works.