quote:quit explaining to the forum writ large or other individuals or nebulous hazy conceptualizations in your head like 'liberals' or 'atheists' how their disagreement with you — no matter how well articulated — is the result of their fallow, shameful inability to be reasonable at all, and explaining at length how other people would see the obvious truth of your statements if they weren't ignorant gullible closed-minded sheep
Ron to Rakeesh, today:
quote:Not true Rakeesh. It is only in your own mind that you think you or anyone else has "proven" that anything I said was "a bunch of bunk." I answered you; you just refuse to let my answers register fairly. That is why I do not respect you as a debater.
The hits keep coming!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (with more and more regularly, insisting on making the issue of disagreement with you religious; sometimes even going so far as to state that your detractors are harming the work of God and being tempted by devilish influences.)
and today:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I would prefer that there be a sharp divide between the people with sense who listen to me and appreciate what I have to say, and those who resist wisdom and try to mislead others. In the Judgment, I am not the one who will have to apologize to God. My conscience is clear.
posted
Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good, you're back. Let me quote myself now, since you seemed to have missed this:
quote:The video is 1:59 long.
At 0:35 you hear this phrase (or something like it) with a family photo displayed on the screen and the subtitle "Barack is a son of this village."
At 0:43 that clip is repeated, again with the photo and subtitle.
At 1:00 the clip is repeated a third time. Again with the photo and subtitle, but also with the text "Barack was born in this village" overlayed on it.
There are no further sound clips after this halfway point in the video.
All three clips are repeats of an isolated snippet from what was apparently a TV broadcast. You never actually see her say the words nor is any context provided for those remarks to determine whether she was speaking about the President or his father or if any other statements that she made at the time clarified her meaning. Finally this video seems to be the only source which claims that these words describe a literal birth event.
Ron, as a sign of good faith here, would you acknowledge that we do not in fact 'see and hear Obama's grandmother say "Barack nate dhalani."' in this video?
quote:Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
No, in fact, they're as much issues of reality sometimes. As in this case. Either she said it or she did not. That's not a moral issue. We're asking you where in the video she said it. What specific number of seconds she said it. Go to the video, pause it at the time in which she is speaking her damning testimony, and read the count of second, and come tell us so we can see for ourselves-as well as all the people who take you seriously and are wise.
Whether or not she said it isn't a moral issue. Once we've answered that question, then there are moral issues involved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think that Ron ties his political beliefs into his religious beliefs in a way that I believe a psychologist would find fascinating.
He doesn't need logic, or evidence, or facts. He has faith in them, much like people have faith in God.
-------------------------------
Sorry for talking about you in third person, Ron, but the post was very awkwardly worded when I tried to avoid that.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Ron still seems to want to say no to the evidence of his own eyes.
As a recap, on the strangely derailed Smallville thread, he wrote:
quote:As for the hissy fit some of you threw over Obama's grandmother saying he was born in her village, I did provide you with a link to a video of her saying that.
to which I replied,
quote:Just to be clear, Ron, your contention at that time was that in this video you see Sarah Obama on the screen speaking at the same time you hear the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani."
Do you stand by that? Can you point out how many minutes and seconds into the video you see that happen?
to which he then replied,
quote:Destineer: Yes. Did you not view the video for yourself?
Now, as anyone (except Ron, apparently) who watches the video will agree, they only play the sound clip "Barack nate dhalani" at points when Sarah Obama is not shown speaking on the screen. This means it's possible they faked the sound clip (which is what Ron was originally denying).
I really just can't understand why anyone would act this way, except in an attempt at a bad joke. It would be like if I said, "Ron, you yourself agreed that Obama was born in Hawaii. It's written right there in your last post. Don't you see what you wrote?"
Ron, if you could just do what I asked and say exactly how far (minutes and seconds) into the video you actually see Sarah Obama say those words...?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have another question, should Ron be willing to answer. Presuming that you were correct and Obama's maternal grandmother has in fact claimed, on at least on occasion, that she witnessed Obama's birth in a small rural village in Kenya. Which of the following do you think is a more likely explanation.
1. Barack's mother, a young pregnant American girl, traveled to Kenya in 1961 to give birth in a small rural village devoid of modern medical care. Her parents, recognizing instantly that this could present a problem should their grandson someday run for President, conspired with the state of Hawaii and the local papers to create legal documents verifying that he was born in Hawaii rather than Kenya. All records of the Kenya trip were destroyed and the family buried this secret until his maternal grandmother in Kenya (perhaps becoming old and forgetful) slipped up and told a pastor the truth. She has since been pressured to retract the statement.
2. Barack was born in the US as reported in the contemporary newspapers and official records. Sarah Obama, hoping to inflate her own importance, lied to a pastor about being present at her grandson's birth.
3. Barack was born in the US as reported in the contemporary newspapers and official records. Due to a confusion in the translation of questions, Sarah Obama said Barack was born in her village. Although she corrected this misunderstanding in further questioning, the Pastor has edited that part out of the tape in order to support his political opposition to President Obama.
Which story seems most probable? Explain your reasoning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
Poor guy. He can't help himself.
By the time the subject came up, the thread had been derailed for sometime and it was more my fault than Ron's.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Ron really derailed the smallville thread to show he's still completely ignorant of the holes in his description of the video?
He's not ignorant. He can't be. I mean, he's not blind.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Not really. Rakeesh brought it up, and Ron responded.
Well, sort of. At first I was just laughing at the silliness if bragging about how smart one is rather than just *showing* it, pointing out why it was silly by giving the example of Ron's habitual dishonesty when it comes to discussing politics. This thread is an example of it-it's as close to a point of fact as this sort of thing can be.
"Video says this." "No, it doesn't, show us where exactly." "Have you watched the video? It says it. Don't be a lazy liberal." "We've watched where you said to watch, and it simply doesn't say that. Could you respond by saying where *exactly*, minutes and seconds, it says what you say?" "..."
That's actually a pretty accurate recap of what happened, and in all likelihood what'll happen again. And on *that* basis, Ron casts insults on citizenship, lays claim to great diligence, intelligence, even holiness and honesty. So if he's gonna claim some sort of virtue of brains or honesty or both...he can either tolerate this being brought up, or address it. So I brought it up, because Ron was again lauding one of his virtues, and he's called me (and others) liars, lazy Americans, and implies we'll see damnation for questioning him before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Best to be fair: Ron doesn't say you risk damnation for questioning him, but rather for ignoring what he believes are important truths that he is merely relating. Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Best to be fair: Rin *says* that, but the sort of humility that ought I'm not mistaken accompany that sort of rhetoric according to its own standards is, well, almost totally lacking. They long with talk like 'you dare question my integrity' makes me pretty comfortable with my choice of words, even if not accurate according to his literal posts. In any event...our questions so far haven't yielded up answers, actual answers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Precisely. Truth is the ultimate religious issue. It may have escaped your notice, because you like to play with truth and falsehood so much. But truth and falsehood are moral issues.
They are scientific and ethical issues. Because ultimately which religion is right?
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, that is a question I certainly feel is worth answering (as opposed to rehashing old caviling over and over again). I have a fundamentally different view of what religion is, than many other people seem to have. I do not regard religion as something that one believes in blindly, for no good reason. Nor do I believe that it is subjective.
I believe that religion is the ultimate truth of the universe. It is no less than a factual description of what reality is, as true as any of the laws of physics. Religion encompasses our knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe, and what our response to it should be.
If there is God the Creator--which by far seems the most logical thing to infer from the manifest existence of an ordered universe from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic--then that means that any attempt to understand the truth of the universe, must include this basic assumption.
Then since the Creator God exists, He is independent of our understanding of Him, independent of anything we think or say about Him, and if we really want to know anything at all about Him, we should first of all see if He has made an attempt at communicating with us. The Bible is verified as that attempt by the presence throughout it of prophecies of the future history of the world that have proven exactly accurate even thousands of years in advance. It is therefore foolish to try to devise any philosophy or religion that does not encompass this.
Religion is not the traditional ways of conducting worship, or the liturgy of churches, or the way you were raised to be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, or Moslem, or Hindu. There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality. True religion is true science. Both seek to know the truth by any reasonable means, and does not arbitrarily choose to ignore the Bible as a proven reliable source of information in any field of knowledge that it addresses.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Literary interpretation isn't true science. It's not even soft science. It's *valuable*, certainly. It can lead to insight. But it's not science as one without an agenda would use the word. I point that out because the only way you get to admit the Bible's prophetic accuracy is, by your own admission, through repeated use of 'common sense' and standards of literary interpretation. Not science-that word carries a weight of trial and error and, ultimately, exact credibility you wish to impart to your religious beliefs they don't merit. You'll dispute this, of course, but you won't even go to an elementary school science fair and find terms such as 'literary interpretation' on a piece of posterboard, but that is the only way your religion's prophetic accuracy is as accurate as you say.
While I personally believe it's more likely that there is a creator, it's not some logical imperative the flows from the existence of an ordered universe, and of course in any event does nothing to address the problem of that solution setting that problem back a stage...if you're approaching the thing in these terms. ------
I note without surprise your lack of willingness to revisit 'old caviling'. Despite direct challenges, despite direct demonstrations they your claims are mistaken based on your own evidence, despite repeatedly impugning the citizenship and honesty of those who did so...well. Not despite, because of those things. It's not going to go away anymore than the other times you've reacted this way to direct challenges.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality.
There are so many truths and so many realities that for humans to try and encompass "God", to say "This is what God thinks, and wants, and loves, and will not tolerate" is beyond ridiculous.
The one small world in a galaxy which is nearly endless has so much diversity and different forms of life and ways of doing things and beauty and we have barely scratched the surface of our understanding of it that to think that one religion has all the answers to the extent of being a science is insane.
The reality of a deep sea fish, that is, crushing pressure and nearly light-less existence and put a human there, and they would die. Bring that same fish up to our world and it would explode. Two realities, two truths. And if I understand it right, your creator God made both us humans and those fish.
For me, that is the beauty of it all...endless truths, endless realities. It's all God, and it's all good and you can pick the parts that have meaning for you personally.
ETA: I look at the wonderful diversity, the beautiful differences in every detail of every little piece of every little bit of this world and it doesn't not lead me to believe in the "God" that created it having only one true answer, only one correct doctrine, only one set of rules to be in his good grace, and all other ways of thinking leading to endless torture and moral depravity. What I see is acceptance of many ways, love of life and understanding that it takes flexibility and open mindedness to achieve your goals.
The Nazi party believed that only one way was the right way, and all others were an abomination, and worthy of destruction.
If God didn't want diversity then why did he make us different? I'm not talking about eye/skin/hair color, but in the way we think, in the way we live, in the way we are.
How can your understanding of a loving God call for the eternal damnation of good and loving people around the world who happen to practice a different religion then your own Ron?
quote:The reality of a deep sea fish, that is, crushing pressure and nearly light-less existence and put a human there, and they would die. Bring that same fish up to our world and it would explode. Two realities, two truths.
I fail to see how this is not one reality and one truth.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey ron, instead of trying yet again to make the same argument you've had refuted a million times about the verified truth and unerring accuracy of the bible, how about we go back to the more topical issue of you making the same argument you've had refuted a million times about how the video you gave us doesn't show ms. obama saying "Barack nate dhalani" even though you have insisted voraciously that it does?
C'mon Ron. You can do it. BE A BEACON OF TRUTH.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew it. I knew he was waiting for a bunch of other posts to reply to so he could avoid the question about the video.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp...the truth/reality for the fish is untrue for humans, and vice versa.
I say the sky is blue, and it is true, except at sunset, when it is red and orange which is also true. So which is it? Is the sky blue or orange and red? Both completely contradictory statements are true.
Marriage is good and helps makes people happy. True for many people, myself included, not true for my father. Both completely contradictory statements are true.
As far as I can figure, there is only one universal truth: Things change.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Samp...the truth/reality for the fish is untrue for humans, and vice versa.
Uh, no. The fish and humans are existing in the same reality, and the same thing is true for both of them: that they have different physiology to the extent that their range of survivable habitat has no overlap, and thus would die pretty quickly if they for whatever reason ended up in each other's habitat exposed.
It really has nothing to do with 'different truths' or 'different realities,' it's different circumstances for two different organisms of the same reality, in the same reality, experiencing the same reality. This does not make a case at all for 'two realities, two truths.'
quote:Marriage is good and helps makes people happy. True for many people, myself included, not true for my father. Both completely contradictory statements are true.
Even if we take the statement "Marriage is good and helps make people happy" as a given, marriage not being good for a particular individual for a myriad of reasons does not become completely contradictory to that statement. The statement can be read as an overall statement, that having marriage in society/culture creates a net overall benefit.
It would be contradictory to the statement "Marriage is good for EVERYONE and makes EVERYONE happy" but that wouldn't create a contradiction, just evidence that the statement is false.
It's the same as noting that the statement "Cars are good and useful technology" is not contradicted by my uncle dying in a horrid car accident because he was a crappy driver. He is not existing in his own separate reality where cars aren't good and useful. He's just not a person who dealt well with cars or had a good individual outcome from cars existing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is one of completeness, SW, not subjectivity. The sky is not always blue, so the statement "the sky is CURRENTLY blue" has a more complete truth than "the sky is blue."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand where you are coming from I believe, that is, you want arguments which are persuasive in and of themselves, but I'd bet against tall odds we stand on the same side of the "there is only one truth about God (and Ron has it)".
What is your personal definition of truth? I have found this word in particular to be a tricky one, as it has several valid ideas behind it.
Truth = not false. Simple, yet again, tricky.
Truth = universal, undeniable, always true, never false.
Truth = relative to the topic at hand reality. Something that is true for one set of circumstances which is not under other circumstances. The sky color example.
Truth = honest, non-deceiving.
quote:It really has nothing to do with 'different truths' or 'different realities,' it's different circumstances for two different organisms of the same reality, in the same reality, experiencing the same reality. This does not make a case at all for 'two realities, two truths.'
The point of my example is that there are no universal truths (except the aforementioned change) and that the evidence we are presented with about which we can use to discover the aspects of "God" are varied and worlds different from each organism to each individual to each atom.
Why would a creator make everything as varied as possible and then demand uniformity?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf_, you said: "There are so many truths and so many realities...."
This is the very definition of insanity. Schizophrenia, to be precise. You would probably be particularly fond of the science fiction of Philip K. Dick. He liked giving people the equivalent of an epistemological hotfoot.
Samprimary, you said: "The fish and humans are existing in the same reality...."
For once you said something I agree with.
Later, Stone_Wolf_, you said: "...there is only one truth about God (and Ron has it)."
No, I only affirm the first part. There is only one truth about God. I do not maintain as a basic axiom that I have it. I SEEK it. There is a big difference. No one is born right. Anyone who wants to be right has to become it by learning it. I believe I am making progress toward it. I was raised a Free Will Baptist. I became a Seventh-day Adventist as a result of my own seeking for truth. But I do not even contend that Seventh-day Adventists have all the truth, or even that every last detail of their published beliefs are entirely accurate.
I believe I should worship the Creator, not the creature. Going blindly by the teachings of any denomination or other religious body (or community of scientists, for that matter) would amount to putting my trust in the creature.
Stone_Wolf_ you also said: "The point of my example is that there are no universal truths...."
If that were true then the universe could not exist.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah but Tom, while the sky is currently blue here, it also currently setting and therefore red and orange at the same time. I'm sure it is also black (night) and grey (stormy) also at this exact moment.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Stone_Wolf_, one does not preclude the other. They are all a part of the same reality, obeying the same true physical laws.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You miss my point Ron, there is room for more then one truth. The sky is blue, and red, and orange and black and grey and etc etc.
I honor you for seeking, and all others who look for a higher meaning. Where I oppose you is that there is only one answer to find.
You say God made everything, just exactly as He wanted it to be, right? And things are wildly divergent, varied and chock full of minute and astronomical differences, and then believe that He wants uniformity.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but you believe that if a person does not believe that Jesus is the one and only son of God and ask Him for forgiveness that they will be tormented for eternity, even if that person was a kind and good seeker of deeper truth who was a positive influence on their family and community, who sought to do no harm and further sought to right any wrongs they had done, who sought to help all the people they met as best they could, to in other words, be the embodiment of ever human virtue?
Again, I honor you for seeking truth, but oppose you that your truth is the only truth worth having and all others are meaningless without yours.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Ron, I can't help but notice you've gone mysteriously silent on the video issue.
Remember?
The video you gave us?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I knew it. I knew he was waiting for a bunch of other posts to reply to so he could avoid the question about the video.
Are you so ruefully predictable, right down to a psychological level?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a shame that someone who would clearly like to convince the world of his ability to carefully analyse and interpret information is so unwilling to admit it when he makes a blatant mistake.
It undermines his argument on many other points, religious or otherwise.
There's no harm in saying that you got something wrong. It just shows that you're honest and decent.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
How would a breathing tube prevent him from typing?
Clearly you are too lazy, dishonest, and un-American to get my point here. Nobody has presented any evidence to me that a breathing tube would not prevent him from typing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Blayne, that is a question I certainly feel is worth answering (as opposed to rehashing old caviling over and over again). I have a fundamentally different view of what religion is, than many other people seem to have. I do not regard religion as something that one believes in blindly, for no good reason. Nor do I believe that it is subjective.
I believe that religion is the ultimate truth of the universe. It is no less than a factual description of what reality is, as true as any of the laws of physics. Religion encompasses our knowledge of the ultimate reality of the universe, and what our response to it should be.
If there is God the Creator--which by far seems the most logical thing to infer from the manifest existence of an ordered universe from the macrocosmic to the submicroscopic--then that means that any attempt to understand the truth of the universe, must include this basic assumption.
Then since the Creator God exists, He is independent of our understanding of Him, independent of anything we think or say about Him, and if we really want to know anything at all about Him, we should first of all see if He has made an attempt at communicating with us. The Bible is verified as that attempt by the presence throughout it of prophecies of the future history of the world that have proven exactly accurate even thousands of years in advance. It is therefore foolish to try to devise any philosophy or religion that does not encompass this.
Religion is not the traditional ways of conducting worship, or the liturgy of churches, or the way you were raised to be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, or Moslem, or Hindu. There can be only one truth, because there is only one reality. True religion is true science. Both seek to know the truth by any reasonable means, and does not arbitrarily choose to ignore the Bible as a proven reliable source of information in any field of knowledge that it addresses.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: it's okay Samp, the doctor probably put a breathing tube in his throat so he couldn't talk anymore.
How would a breathing tube prevent him from typing?
They're making a reference to something Ron said about Rep. Gifford's (who was shot in the head) doctor putting a tube in her throat so that she wouldn't be able to talk to anybody and thus experience undue emotional trauma. A few folks her jumped all over him about it.
posted
I thought Rabbit was in on the joke, and making fun of the fact that in this case the breathing tube was really pretty useless.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I think it's a shame that someone who would clearly like to convince the world of his ability to carefully analyse and interpret information is so unwilling to admit it when he makes a blatant mistake.
It undermines his argument on many other points, religious or otherwise.
There's no harm in saying that you got something wrong. It just shows that you're honest and decent.
Yes. It is a shame. And it wouldn't have been a big deal if he had just said, "Oops, I mis-remembered what was in the video" in the first place. It would have undermined his case for birtherism, of course, but that ended up happening anyway.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
You're forgetting the part where he's got a scary Arabic-sounding name, he's black, and he's supposed to be some kind of socialist. That gives people license to be dishonest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is there anyone else on this board who is saying this stuff, or is it all Ron?
If it's just Ron, I'd say just chalk it up to "Ron is dishonest/crazy" and move on.
On this board Ron perhaps stands alone, but there are not a few Americans who still think this issue is unresolved.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the reasons they feel that way, mind, is that when proponents or "it's a legitimate question" folks such as Ron are pressed directly on the matter, they behave in a consistently dishonest way without addressing the challenge, pivoting towards some sort of talk about liberals or Muslims or the left-or in this case, somehow *God* comes up.
Anything, anything, anything except for the love of God don't actually respond to direct questions, just insist they've been answered already.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The sad thing is that even if the woman was literaly trying to say, "He was born in *this* village, here in Kenya!" The amount of evidence to the contrary, would lead me to believe she is just mistaken, or senile, not that Obama is hiding something.
That's what I was getting at with my "Which story is more probable" question above. In Obama was in fact born in Kenya, the only explanation for the evidence is that his family, the Hawaiian government and newspapers entered into a conspiracy 50 years ago to falsify the location of his birth. And the only reason it would ever have mattered is if they knew Obama would run for President and his mother would move to Indonesia before he turned 5.
That story is just so much more unlikely than one old woman lying that its no contest.
And that doesn't even factor in the part about a young pregnant American girl traveling to Kenya in 1961 (when international travel was far far more difficult) to give birth in a tiny African village devoid of modern medical care.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
