The Brand New Birther Thread

So why - other than the fact you like what he says - should we trust Bill Warner ? It is not as if you don't have a record for choosing highly prejudiced and unreliable sources.Don't you have any other sources we can check ? Preferably Muslim sources.

So you can't give us any reason to think that Bill Warner knows what he is talking about, and Muslim sources don't confirm your claims.All we have is your usual assertion that your views are the "truth" and no real support for them. To that I say that you do not get to dictate what is and is not truth. We can see that you are prejudiced and irrational and frequently wrong. If you will not or cannot support your assertions - especially when it looks as if you are repeating assertions that have already been refuted in past discussion - then you cannot expect to be believed.

quote:

---

Warner gives FACTS, something you yourself can check out if you would.

---

What you call facts. Which as we know often do not check out - for one relevant example see Message 116

quote:

---

It's ALL about facts, it's not about my personal judgment

---

Quite obviously it is more about your personal judgement. You declare things to be facts without offering the slightest support other than someone has a video saying so.

quote:

---

And one of the facts is that Islam teaches lying to infidels. You ignore that one at your peril

---

Then please show that it IS a fact.

quote:

---

Of course "Muslim sources don't confirm" these claims. Of course. It would be absurd to expect the wolf to confirm the chicken's point of view because they'd be kicked out of the hen house if they did

---

It is not so absurd when you realise that Muslims are quite thoroughly divided in many ways. It would, for instance, be quite possible for an extremist group to make such a claim and for a more liberal group to loudly condemn it.So how do we tell the difference between a claim that is not supported because it is a "secret" and a claim which is not supported because it is a fabrication ?

quote:

---

But you would have to put some effort into finding out about it. It's easy to boil it all down to my personal errors, but it isn't ABOUT my personal error

---

Again, if you are proclaiming something as fact without offering any support then it may well be your personal error. It would hardly be the first time. And I really do not like watching videos even when it is practical (right now it is not) and nothing you have said makes me think this one will be worthwhile.

quote:

---

The Ten Commandments

---

One wonders how those have been "taken away". And who was actually responsible for it.

quote:

---

The Christian worldview (by importing Marxism and Postmodernism into the universities)

---

So you are against academic freedom, and freedom of religion too.

quote:

---

The sanctity of life

---

Let's guess, you mean abortion. And nothing else.

quote:

---

The Constitution (by rejecting original intent)

---

Says someone who wants to redefine the First Amendment, and instate religious tests for office. And there are other issues (The Nineth Amenbment seems to be unpopular with the Right, for one)

quote:

---

The First Amendment (by applying the right of free speech to such things as pornography, and by propaganda threatening conservative free speech as "hate speech" and now as "fake news."

---

I am pretty sure that criticising Conservative claims - even in an intemperate manner - is not a threat to free speech - but banning it would be.

I am sure that there are plenty more stories you don't see, like this one from 2013 Coptic bishop thanks Muslims who protected Christians in Egypt

I hope that you do the research and get accurate information instead of relying on heavily biased accounts. Islam, as I have said, is divided and a very large number of Muslims are happy to live in peace with non-Muslims.

quote:

---

See above. The very singular very peculiar circumstances point to Obama, not to just any vague generic foreign student

---

You haven't shown that the circumstances do point to Obama.Do you have any evidence that the Ayers family helped Obama with his schooling ?My reading indicates that he didn't meet Bill Ayers until after he started teaching at Chicago.I haven't even found evidence placing Obama in Chicago until after he had graduated from Columbia.If Obama doesn't fit the picture - and he doesn't seem to - then surely it is more likely that it was someone else.

Lewis did indeed argue that if we believed that there were witches, we should agree that they deserved execution.However, this is not sufficient to defend the witch hunts or their methods - Lewis does not even argue that there were ANY genuine witches, let alone discuss the practices involved in convicting and executing alleged witches. If those executed were, in fact, innocent - and often cruelly treated to force confession - then surely the witch hunts deserve to be condemned as a monstrous miscarriage of justice.

I have done a little digging and thought some more on this.One point of minor interest is that the mailman originally dated the incidents to the mid-80s. It was the interviewer who suggested early 90s.But there is a question here. Why would Mary Ayers call Obama a foreign student ? Obama was an American citizen and had lived in America since 1971, gone to school in Hawaii, and graduated from Occidental and Columbia. Maybe when he enrolled in school in Hawaii it might make sense, but not after so much time. Of course she might possibly have assumed that Obama was foreign based on his name, but that hardly helps anyone who wants to read a deeper significance into it.And if Obama was openly calling himself a foreigner, openly getting help from Mary Ayers why is there no corroborating evidence at all ? You can't keep a secret by going around blabbing it to the mailman, and visiting a secret benefactor in an area where any black person would be conspicuous is not exactly wise.So, I have to say that it seems more likely that it was not Obama. Maybe Mary Ayers was helping a foreign student at the University of Chicago - concluding mistaken identity on the part of the mailman - who didn't knowingly see Obama until much later - is hardly a big stretch, and that hypothesis removes all the other problems.Even if the visitor was Obama - unlikely as it seems - we would still have a problem concluding that Mary Ayers correctly called him a foreign student - there is no great problem with Mary Ayers also helping another student who was foreign, or even wrongly assuming that Obama was foreign from his name.

quote:

---

There is every reason to suppose it was Obama...

---

Well that isn't true. It doesn't even make sense to identify Obama as a foreign student. There is no reason to think that Obama even knew Mary Ayers at that point in his life, let alone was helped by her. Sure he met Bill Ayers later, but that was after he had completed his education.

quote:

---

But in this case there are known facts about Obama that are completely independent of anything the mailman could make up that corroborate his memory, such as Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, his foreign name and known time spent in foreign countries

---

According to Obama the relationship with Bill Ayers only began after these events - when he was teaching at Chicago. So that doesn't really help you. And if you are going to go all conspiracy theory over that then openly going to Mary Ayer's house, announcing that he was thanking her for help with his education doesn't really make a lot of sense if the relationship was secret.A real foreign student would be likely to have a foreign name. Really, you can't complain about other people's thinking if you miss that.And I am not sure why you list time in foreign countries as counting for anything at all. It doesn't make Obama foreign, especially after so long living in the U.S.

quote:

---

You're all bending over backwards to discredit really good evidence, simply out of bias

---

Says the woman appealing to nonsensical conspiracy theories to cover up the holes in her argument.

quote:

---

The evidence that the mailman gave amounts to every reason to suppose it was Obama, whether you dispute the evidence or not. From the evidence given it is quite right to conclude that it was Obama. FROM THE EVIDENCE GIVEN... It had to be Obama, his memory dovetails with the known facts. You dispute his memory, but that's something else.

---

It may be the ONLY reason to believe it, but that is all. It certainly does not dovetail with the known facts. And under the circumstances it isn't really sufficient evidence to cover the basic improbability of the claim. He could be mistaken, and by the evidence he probably is.

quote:

---

The man's testimony is so credible you should be correcting the information YOU are trusting by it. If he remembers Mary Ayers describing the student as a "foreign student" then you have to give up your insistence that he couldn't have been.

---

As has already been pointed out it is not certain that Mary Ayers was speaking about the same student. It is hardly impossible that she helped two students - or maybe more. However I do not insist on even that. Instead I believe that she WAS talking about a foreign student. And, therefore, she was not talking about Obama who was not a foreign student.

quote:

---

Why are you trusting people who have a vested interest in denying inconvenient facts about his history? There are LOTS of such inconvenient facts in Obama's history, far beyond the location of his birth. We could be here for years sorting them all

---

I don't think that disagreeing with questionable assertions you happen to like really counts as "denying inconvenient facts". But in this case - if we assume a secret association with Ayers (which is not that likely) - it really doesn't make sense fit Obama to publically go out to his mother's house to thank her for secret help and tell the mailman what he was doing. So either way you have a problem.

quote:

---

I didn't miss his having a foreign name, where are you getting that? The mailmain remembered him as having a foreign name, he just couldn't remember the name itself. Turns out the name "Obama" happens to be a foreign name, corroborating his imperfect memory

---

I said that you missed the fact that an actual foreign student - one who was not a U.S. Citizen, resident in the U.S. - would likely have a foreign name. And you missed it again.

quote:

---

Since it would have been very important in Obama's Presidential campaign to play down his association with Ayers, I wouldn't trust anything they said about when they met or how close their relationship was

---

However, as I pointed out this whole business makes the idea of a secret relationship implausible.

quote:

---

There's good reason to distrust the establishment stories about Obama that you all buy so uncritically, so you can't use them to convince me to give up my own good judgment pf tje facts as I've encountered them

---

It is not a matter of simply trusting them - and I did not rely on them. I did consider the possibility of a secret relationship and that consideration was right there in my post. the story only makes sense if the visitor had an open relationship with the Ayers family and Obama did not. And in fact the timescale is so vague we neither know if Obama was a student or in Chicago at the time.So I suggest again that the most likely explanation is that Mary Ayers was helping a foreign student who was not Obama - most likely studying in Chicago - that he was the visitor and quite possibly talking about a different Presidency altogether. Since you haven't offered any reason to think that Mary Ayers was at all likely to call Obama a foreign student - and because it is reasonably likely that the mailman's identification was mistaken this would seem the more likely explanation.

quote:

---

I get criticized for everything I do, right or wrong. My arguments on this subject are really really good. Doesn't stop the Choir of Criticizers. And I do check on most things anyway.

---

Just a few posts above you quoted a foolishly wrong argument from Tom Lipscomb. One you should have known was foolishly wrong Message 203Now either you foolishly thought it was good (foolish because even you know perfectly well that Kenya was not a random choice) or you knew it was no good and decided to use it anyway.Neither speaks well of you and your case.It doesn't really matter whether you are biased to a completely ridiculous degree or just plain flat-out lying. But the fact remains that you call bad arguments good and complain that other people dare to point out the flaws in them.