Obumma's birth certificate a fake?

[Ragman]

REAL MEN never agonize over problems. They see them, fix them as quickly as possible so they can return to more important things, like "hunkering" drinking, eating huge chunks of semi burned meat and belching.

They also look for opertunities to exploit, which can make them more money so that they have more time to "hunker"

 

[layoutshooter]

Not a REAL MAN, not hunkering. That guy is a "wannabe"

 

[Ragman]

REAL MEN never agonize over problems. They see them, fix them as quickly as possible so they can return to more important things, like "hunkering" drinking, eating huge chunks of semi burned meat and belching.

They also look for opertunities to exploit, which can make them more money so that they have more time to "hunker"

 

[Turtle]

Okay.....so this is what this all about. First you made it about taking the thread off topic, then it was because Poorboy was asking a rhetorical question and not an "actual" question, and now its because I accused Layout of Trolling. So, not only do you speak for Poorboy and know what his intentions are, now you are defending Layout. He can't do that himself? You're a mod, he's a mod, if he took exception to my post that was directed towards HIM, let him take issue with it.

No, that's not what it's all about. It's all about precisely what I said it was all about. But it's what prompted me to speak up. Taking things off topic a tad during a normal conversation isn't a problem in and of itself, generally, until you go and start whining about someone trolling, who wasn't trolling at all, and by doing so you're trolling yourself. You never even gave any normal conversation a chance. It's hypocritical.

You have your hands full Turtle if your job is to babysit the other moderators.

Fortunately, that's not my job.

It was a simple question.

In another context, perhaps, but not in the context in which you asked it.

Lets face it, the GUY and the ISSUE are pretty much synonymous. Anyone who has been in the Soapbox, active or lurking, would know this.

Again, hypocritical. You and your Beck rants and your rants about how people in the Soapbox watch him are synonymous, yet you whined and whined when people pointed that out and used your posts from other threads to do so. You can't complain about something, and then turn tight around and do the same thing to someone else, and not get called on it.

Again, in my opinion they have become synonymous.

Nobody said you shouldn't have an opinion. You just need to voice your opinion within the constraints of civility and outside the bounds of hypocrisy.

And what in the h*ll is so wrong with that?

A basic concept you seem to have a hard time grasping. Once you confront the poster personally, rather than the issue, all intelligent discussion stops. It is no longer about making your case for the issue, it's about beating down your opponent. It serves no purpose to the discussion or to the community. That's what's so wrong with that.

Sorry, but when I read a post, especially one that has been debunked over and over again, and that same person has repeatedly made clear of his beliefs in the past, then yes, I will ask the poster what they believe. You know why, because it fascinates me. People that believe in conspiracy theories fascinate the h*ll out of me. That being said, even though this issue of the birth certificate should've been put to bed long ago, it obviously hasn't for some, and that just plain fascinates me. That is why I asked Poorboy the question. I truly did not know if he had changed his mind on the authenticity of the birth certificate or not, so I asked him.

Fine, then figure out a way to ask within the topic of the thread. If you hadn't already established a pattern of confrontation, and didn't admit to seeing nothing wrong with that, and didn't scream hypocrisy when you do it, none of this would have happened.

That one made me chuckle.

I figured it would.

Speaking of patterns, I would say this particular member definately has shown to have a pattern on this particular subject.

Again, does it matter? If it does, then you give up your right to whine some someone treats you the same way. Can't have it both ways.

You may want to try and refrain from the personal attacks there Mr. Moderator, its not very becoming of you.

There ya go, hypocrisy. I make an observation about your established pattern, and it's a personal attack. But it's OK for you to confront someone over what you observe to be a pattern with them.

Yeah.....I'm just flooding the admin by clicking on the "Report Post" requests and going into other forums in EO and bad mouthing other members. Oh the humanity.

Poor baby. It'll be OK.

 

[layoutshooter]

This is what happens when you cease to hunker.

 

[Jack_Berry]

i don' t think many of the last posts have anything to do with the topic. i would say try to bring this back inline but we all know about this subject, this dog don't hunt.

 

[layoutshooter]

Sometimes I go into this mode to defuse or attempt to end the goofies. Don't seem to be working.

At least I helped a couple of people to have a bit of fun.

 

[Ragman]

i don' t think many of the last posts have anything to do with the topic. i would say try to bring this back inline but we all know about this subject, this dog don't hunt.

We're hunkering.

 

[Moot]

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?

It is astoundingly absurd because you posted what you believe to be this "guy's" stand on the birth certificate issue, yet you keep badgering him for his opinion. Why?

 

[Ragman]

It is astoundingly absurd because you posted what you believe to be this "guy's" stand on the birth certificate issue, yet you keep badgering him for his opinion. Why?

Shhhhh. We're hunkering.

 

[Moot]

Shhhhh. We're hunkering.

Oooh, sorry! Can I get a witness?

 

[layoutshooter]

oooh, sorry! Can i get a witness?

very good!!

 

[Turtle]

Sometimes I go into this mode to defuse or attempt to end the goofies. Don't seem to be working.

At least I helped a couple of people to have a bit of fun.

True enough, but tea, group hugs, football, hunkering and all the rest isn't any less off-topic than the goofies. But at least the goofies evolved out of the topic.

My whole point is, if you're going to participate in the Soapbox, especially as a professional soapboxer, then you'd better have thicker skin and not be hypocritical about stuff. If you're going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

To wit:
"It is astoundingly absurd because you posted what you believe to be this "guy's" stand on the birth certificate issue, yet you keep badgering him for his opinion. Why?"


If he already knows what this "guy's" stance is, there is no need to ask him what he thinks about it. To do so has but one purpose. His bread and butter is confrontation, as is the case with most professional soapboxers. But if someone confronts him about his man crush on Beck, he's being personally attacked, waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. That's hypocritical, at best, and is a clear indication that he's not as pure as the driven snow as his professed lack of ulterior motives suggest.

 

[Jack_Berry]

We're hunkering.

all rIght...WHO'SE HAND WAS THAT??

 

[witness23]

No, that's not what it's all about. It's all about precisely what I said it was all about. But it's what prompted me to speak up. Taking things off topic a tad during a normal conversation isn't a problem in and of itself, generally, until you go and start whining about someone trolling, who wasn't trolling at all, and by doing so you're trolling yourself. You never even gave any normal conversation a chance. It's hypocritical.

In other words, what's good for the goose isn't for the gander.

Fortunately, that's not my job.

Looks as though it is.

In another context, perhaps, but not in the context in which you asked it.

Since the original birth certificate had emerged I had yet to hear what his opinion of it was? Hence my question.

Again, hypocritical. You and your Beck rants and your rants about how people in the Soapbox watch him are synonymous, yet you whined and whined when people pointed that out and used your posts from other threads to do so. You can't complain about something, and then turn tight around and do the same thing to someone else, and not get called on it.

Rants? Hey, If you choose to view it that way, so be it. Soooo...with that being said, rants about the President = good, rants about Beck = bad.

Nobody said you shouldn't have an opinion.

Except you.

You just need to voice your opinion within the constraints of civility and outside the bounds of hypocrisy.

I'm being lectured on civility? I would love to see the public outing and lecturing of quite a few members on those subjects. Wow!

Once you confront the poster personally, rather than the issue, all intelligent discussion stops.

You have done a rather nice job of showing what that looks like to the members in this thread.

It is no longer about making your case for the issue, it's about beating down your opponent. It serves no purpose to the discussion or to the community. That's what's so wrong with that.

Some in the Soapbox would call that debating.

Again, does it matter? If it does, then you give up your right to whine some someone treats you the same way. Can't have it both ways.

Again, I knew his position before, but had not heard his position on the new certificate, the whole reason why I asked.

There ya go, hypocrisy. I make an observation about your established pattern, and it's a personal attack. But it's OK for you to confront someone over what you observe to be a pattern with them.

You are resorting to name calling and it doesn't make you look very good. Especially coming from a moderator.

Poor baby. It'll be OK.

Not really sure where this is coming from? You really should take your own advice Turtle and stay away from calling other members names.

 

[Turtle]

In other words, what's good for the goose isn't for the gander.

Incorrect. You seem to have a real serious reading comprehension problem sometimes, especially when it's convenient to alter what was actually said.

Since the original birth certificate had emerged I had yet to hear what his opinion of it was? Hence my question.

Sorry. Nice rationalizing backpeddle, but you already flatly stated that you knew what his position already way. If you already knew it, there was no reason to ask it, unless it was for a confrontation. Then he answered it, and because it was an answer you didn't like, because it didn't allow you to confront him, you asked it again.

Rants? Hey, If you choose to view it that way, so be it. Soooo...with that being said, rants about the President = good, rants about Beck = bad.

No, a rant is a rant. Few of them are good. But what you just quoted wasn't about rants, it was about your hypocrisy.

Nobody said you shouldn't have an opinion.

Except you.

That's a lie, and you know it. I've never said you shouldn't have an opinion.

I'm being lectured on civility?

No, you're being lectured on hypocrisy.

You have done a rather nice job of showing what that looks like to the members in this thread.

Don't try to deflect this back on me.

It is no longer about making your case for the issue, it's about beating down your opponent. It serves no purpose to the discussion or to the community. That's what's so wrong with that.

Some in the Soapbox would call that debating.

Only those who do not know what debating is.

Again, I knew his position before, but had not heard his position on the new certificate, the whole reason why I asked.

Again, you asked, he answered. That should have been the end of what his personal views were. You didn't like is answer, so you persisted in trying to make the topic about what his personal views were.

You are resorting to name calling and it doesn't make you look very good. Especially coming from a moderator.

Ouch, that hurt. Is that supposed to make me feel bad or something? Have I called you a name that hurt your widdle feewings?

Not really sure where this is coming from? You really should take your own advice Turtle and stay away from calling other members names.

Is you skin so thin that you have to see name calling when it's nothing more than a description of your own actions and statement? You are what you post. If you don't like being called Poor baby, then don't act like one. If you don't like being called a professional soapboxer, then don't act like one. If you don't like being called a hypocrite, then don't be one. It's really pretty simple.

 

[witness23]

My whole point is, if you're going to participate in the Soapbox, especially as a professional soapboxer, then you'd better have thicker skin and not be hypocritical about stuff. If you're going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

Exactly. Let's hope it holds true for everyone.

To wit:
"It is astoundingly absurd because you posted what you believe to be this "guy's" stand on the birth certificate issue, yet you keep badgering him for his opinion. Why?"

If he already knows what this "guy's" stance is, there is no need to ask him what he thinks about it.

And that is it in a nutshell. I didn't know what his stance was on the new, recently released birth certificate. Because as far as I knew, he hadn't commented on it.

To do so has but one purpose. His bread and butter is confrontation, as is the case with most professional soapboxers.

Then why are you singling me out, if this is the character of the soapbox? It's okay for some to be "confrontational" but not everyone, but it is the character of the soapbox?

But if someone confronts him about his man crush on Beck, he's being personally attacked, waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. That's hypocritical, at best, and is a clear indication that he's not as pure as the driven snow as his professed lack of ulterior motives suggest.

Wow, dude get over it. If anyone is curious in what Turtle is talking about you can view it here.

 

[EnglishLady]

Since the original birth certificate had emerged I had yet to hear what his opinion of it was? Hence my question.

For goodness sake, you know his opinion - it was posted a while back.