Obumma's birth certificate a fake?

[Turtle]

Here's the thing Turtle, in the past, before the President had shown his long form birth certificate, everyone in the Soapbox and EO for that matter, knew where Poorboy stood on this particular subject.

Not me. I pay more attention to what was posted, than to who posted it. Besides, people will often take a side opposite to what they personally believe in order to spark debate, so I really have no idea for any certainty what he believes.

The title of the thread was a question from Poorboy: Obumma's birth certificate a fake?

No, the title of the thread was a title. It was formed in the manner of a question, but it was also formed in the manner of a rhetorical question. In either case, it was a title, which is used not to ask an actual question, but to describe the piece to follow.

Turtle.......with all due respect, you are grasping at straws here.

Newp.The original posted didn't merely ask, "True or not?" he asked a Yes/No question in the context of a reflective inner-personal rhetorical question which require no response. "Watch it yourself at the above link and you decide..Could it be true? or not?" That means go watch it yourself and then decide for yourself whether or not you think it could or could not be true. No response required. It was, in effect, a homework assignment.

As was noted, trying to justify yourself on this is laughable at best.

The "off-topic" examples you proudly posted, while not necessarily on-topic if taken out of context, were in fact on-topic in a conversational flow from the earlier responses to. None of which went off-topic for the purpose of being confrontational with the original poster, unlike you did.

My response to you was with regard to the laughable charge of trolling that you tried to slap someone with. If you are going to be willing to dish out the ridiculous, you have to be willing to take it right back.

 

[witness23]

Actually I consider "I don't know" as an answer .......

"Maybe", "Not sure" are also acceptable in my book .....

how can one give an honest YES/NO answer to something they do not have all evidence of, all facts of ...... etc, etc

Exactly, you've just proven my point. Those would be acceptable answers if you didn't have all the evidence or facts. In the case of the President's birth certificate, we do have all the evidence and facts that prove it is real. What more evidence would be sufficient?

Do you believe it is real?

The evidence, the facts were there from the beginning, but we have those that choose not to believe the facts for reasons only they can answer, if they are asked.

 

[Ragman]

The evidence, the facts were there from the beginning, but we have those that choose not to believe the facts for reasons only they can answer, if they are asked.

Like I posted before - - ->>>

 

[EnglishLady]

Exactly, you've just proven my point. Those would be acceptable answers if you didn't have all the evidence or facts. In the case of the President's birth certificate, we do have all the evidence and facts that prove it is real. What more evidence would be sufficient?

Do you believe it is real?

The evidence, the facts were there from the beginning, but we have those that choose not to believe the facts for reasons only they can answer, if they are asked.

Newspaper reporting, such as this one, is hardly evidence

 

[layoutshooter]

Neither is the word of a politician or any news outlet.

 

[Ragman]

Neither is the word of a politician or any news outlet.

If King Rick Snyder called and said you won the lottery (i know, you don't play), would you believe him?

 

[EnglishLady]

If King Rick Snyder called and said you won the lottery (i know, you don't play), would you believe him?

Is this going to be a YES or NO type question ?

 

[layoutshooter]

If King Rick Snyder called and said you won the lottery (i know, you don't play), would you believe him?

NOPE!! NO WAY! Don't like him anyway. Did not like the other bum less.

 

[Ragman]

NOPE!! NO WAY! Don't like him anyway. Did not like the other bum less.

OK, Just courious.

 

[layoutshooter]

OK, Just courious.

That dude has NO imagination. Same old stuff, Raise this tax, lower this one. BLAH BLAH BLAH. Just another old fuddie duddie.

 

[witness23]

Not me. I pay more attention to what was posted, than to who posted it.

We know, we know.

Besides, people will often take a side opposite to what they personally believe in order to spark debate, so I really have no idea for any certainty what he believes..

Oh I get it, that way you don't have to take responsibilty for what you post. That's convenient. Not a real strong argument you got there, but hey, whattya gonna do?

No, the title of the thread was a title. It was formed in the manner of a question, but it was also formed in the manner of a rhetorical question.

I give you an "A" for effort my brother. I have to tell ya, they are really getting their monies worth with you. It has a question mark in it for God's sakes. You are splitting hairs.

In either case, it was a title, which is used not to ask an actual question, but to describe the piece to follow.

I would agree with that premise only if it were posted in a area where comments were not expected. I wouldn't describe the Soapbox in that way. Sorry.

Newp.The original posted didn't merely ask, "True or not?" he asked a Yes/No question in the context of a reflective inner-personal rhetorical question which require no response..

Soooo, we shouldn't have responded to the post?

"Watch it yourself at the above link and you decide..Could it be true? or not?" That means go watch it yourself and then decide for yourself whether or not you think it could or could not be true. No response required. It was, in effect, a homework assignment.

Well, I've done my homework well before this was even posted, as you have, and many others, and I've decided it isn't fake, it's the real McCoy.

As was noted, trying to justify yourself on this is laughable at best.

What am I trying to justify, that I asked Poorboy what he believed? There is no need to justify a perfectly legitimate question.

The "off-topic" examples you proudly posted, while not necessarily on-topic if taken out of context, were in fact on-topic in a conversational flow from the earlier responses to. None of which went off-topic for the purpose of being confrontational with the original poster, unlike you did.

Why was my post confrontational?

 

[witness23]

Newspaper reporting, such as this one, is hardly evidence

I apologize, but I'm not quite following you here, what newspaper reporting?

 

[layoutshooter]

"Why was my post confrontational?"


MMM , maybe it was meant to be?

 

[EnglishLady]

I apologize, but I'm not quite following you here, what newspaper reporting?

Okey dokey .....

the original post ...... the Patiot news report ..... DOT COM !!

(sorry that was a funny from Jeff Dunham )

 

[Turtle]

We know, we know.

Then don't make such an asinine statement like, "everyone in the Soapbox and EO for that matter, knew where Poorboy stood on this particular subject," because everyone doesn't, in fact, know. There are plenty of people on EO who never even read the Soapbox.

Oh I get it, that way you don't have to take responsibilty for what you post. That's convenient. Not a real strong argument you got there, but hey, whattya gonna do?

I never said you don't have to take responsibility for what you post. I often will take a position that I don't necessarily agree with personally, but I am nonetheless responsible for what I post.

I give you an "A" for effort my brother. I have to tell ya, they are really getting their monies worth with you. It has a question mark in it for God's sakes. You are splitting hairs.

Not at all. I merely understand what a title is, and what it is used for.

I would agree with that premise only if it were posted in a area where comments were not expected. I wouldn't describe the Soapbox in that way. Sorry.

Comments are certainly to be expected in the Soapbox, but that doesn't really change the definition of title.

Soooo, we shouldn't have responded to the post?

I didn't say that. I said one wasn't required. The question asked, in the context of the asking, was merely to have people think on the subject and then, seeing as how it's in the Soapbox and all, for them to post their thoughts on the subject. The question wasn't made so that you could try and make it about what the poster thought.

Well, I've done my homework well before this was even posted, as you have, and many others, and I've decided it isn't fake, it's the real McCoy.

Good for you.

What am I trying to justify, that I asked Poorboy what he believed? There is no need to justify a perfectly legitimate question.

True enough, there isn't, except your question wasn't perfectly legitimate, as by asking it you altered the topic of the thread. You wanted to make this about the poster, not the post.

Why was my post confrontational?

See immediately above. When you make anything about the poster, rather than the post, you are being confrontational. He has to be the one to open that door first. You can't be the one to beat it down.

You can believe all you want, even proclaim it loudly that you did not try to change the topic of the thread, but it wont change the fact that you did. You can disagree all you want, rationalize it all you want, but it still won't change the fact that you did.

 

[witness23]

Newp.The original posted didn't merely ask, "True or not?" he asked a Yes/No question in the context of a reflective inner-personal rhetorical question which require no response.

I'm sure Poorboy appreciates you speaking for him, but in his own words he was asking a question:

Like I said in my previous, I Posted it for "INFORMATION" only and to ask the question true or false..

 

[witness23]

Then don't make such an asinine statement like, "everyone in the Soapbox and EO for that matter, knew where Poorboy stood on this particular subject," because everyone doesn't, in fact, know. There are plenty of people on EO who never even read the Soapbox.

ahhh.....asinine. Okay. I get that you are a very figurative person Turtle, but c'mon man.....you are taking this to another level.

I never said you don't have to take responsibility for what you post.

Well, I would argue that you are doing a pretty good job of it.

Not at all. I merely understand what a title is, and what it is used for.

You can argue the semantics of the title all you want, but you cannot deny he asked the question in the body of his post.

Comments are certainly to be expected in the Soapbox, but that doesn't really change the definition of title.

You want to make this about the title, I get it.

I didn't say that. I said one wasn't required. The question asked, in the context of the asking, was merely to have people think on the subject and then, seeing as how it's in the Soapbox and all, for them to post their thoughts on the subject. The question wasn't made so that you could try and make it about what the poster thought.

What pray tell is wrong with asking a simple yes or no question?

Good for you.

Thank you.

True enough, there isn't, except your question wasn't perfectly legitimate, as by asking it you altered the topic of the thread. You wanted to make this about the poster, not the post.

We have a new birth certificate, I for one(god forbid I speak for anyone else in the Soapbox) knew that Poorboy thought the first one was a fake. We now have another birth certificate, I do not recall Poorboy commenting on it. We now have him posting a video showing how the newest one could be a fake. Since he thought the first one was a fake, logically you would have to imagine he would also think this one is a fake also. But I don't know that for sure, so I simply asked the very logical question, do you think it is real or fake?

See immediately above. When you make anything about the poster, rather than the post, you are being confrontational. He has to be the one to open that door first. You can't be the one to beat it down.

He opened the door by posting the link to the video and asking if it were true or false.

 

[layoutshooter]

Gee, strange idea, someone in the Soapbox arguing semantics. Now just who would EVER do that? Kinda like the pot calling the shovel a spade so to speak.

 

[Turtle]

ahhh.....asinine. Okay. I get that you are a very figurative person Turtle, but c'mon man.....you are taking this to another level.

Asinine is as asinine does, and your statement was asinine.

Well, I would argue that you are doing a pretty good job of it.

Of course you would. You'd argue pretty much anything.

You can argue the semantics of the title all you want, but you cannot deny he asked the question in the body of his post.

I'm not arguing semantics, nor have I denied he asked the question in the post. In fact, I singled it out specifically. Did you not notice that in my reply?

You want to make this about the title, I get it.

Wow, now you're instantly rewriting current history. You sound like Newt. In response to one of my statements, you used as justification for your response: "The title of the thread was a question from Poorboy: Obumma's birth certificate a fake?" It is you who wants to make it about the title, so no, you don't get it.

What pray tell is wrong with asking a simple yes or no question?

On generalities, nothing. When done so to change the topic of a thread, plenty.

We have a new birth certificate, I for one(god forbid I speak for anyone else in the Soapbox) knew that Poorboy thought the first one was a fake. We now have another birth certificate, I do not recall Poorboy commenting on it. We now have him posting a video showing how the newest one could be a fake. Since he thought the first one was a fake, logically you would have to imagine he would also think this one is a fake also. But I don't know that for sure, so I simply asked the very logical question, do you think it is real or fake?

See? Still laughable.

He opened the door by posting the link to the video and asking if it were true or false.

No, he didn't. You beat it down and are grasping at those straws for justification.

 

[witness23]

Asinine is as asinine does, and your statement was asinine.

Of course you would. You'd argue pretty much anything.

I'm not arguing semantics, nor have I denied he asked the question in the post. In fact, I singled it out specifically. Did you not notice that in my reply?

Wow, now you're instantly rewriting current history. You sound like Newt. In response to one of my statements, you used as justification for your response: "The title of the thread was a question from Poorboy: Obumma's birth certificate a fake?" It is you who wants to make it about the title, so no, you don't get it.

On generalities, nothing. When done so to change the topic of a thread, plenty.

See? Still laughable.

No, he didn't. You beat it down and are grasping at those straws for justification.

Turtle you have made this thread a complete farce. It was a simple question. You have a guy who doesn't believe the Presidents birth certificate is legit, you have that same guy post a video showing how the Presidents certificate of live birth is not legit, which has already been debunked, by you no less in a previous thread. Since the matter has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, why is asking that guy if he believes it or not, so astoundling absurd? You think I have alterior motives, you are wrong.

The thread didn't even have the chance to get off topic, you came in, guns a blazin' and took it off topic all by yourself. Well done Mr. Moderator.

What am I trying to justify, that I asked Poorboy what he believed? There is no need to justify a perfectly legitimate question.

True enough, there isn't, except your question wasn't perfectly legitimate, as by asking it you altered the topic of the thread. You wanted to make this about the poster, not the post.

So you speak for Poorboy and you know what my intentions were when asking the question? You are something else Turtle.