ax1
Legend
You havent bought up any evidence the birth certificate is real, other than the government telling us its real and a dead woman saying its real.
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
You havent bought up any evidence the birth certificate is real, other than the government telling us its real and a dead woman saying its real.
Misfit28
Well-known member
No, I guess I haven't. I won't even try, though.
You wouldn't believe it anyway.
Have a great weekend in fantasyland!
Now the fact that I am exasperated and frustrated and refuse to talk about it will lead you to believe that you have won.
All it really means is that you are irrational
ax1
Legend
In 1961 they did not call African's "African" they would use either "negro or black."
Invalid Link Removed[/QUOTE]
Source to back my claim: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed;
U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
Public Health Service;
National Center for Health Statistics;
National Vital Statistics Division;
Race and color
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.
Misfit28
Well-known member
Source to back my claim: Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed;
U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
Public Health Service;
National Center for Health Statistics;
National Vital Statistics Division;
Race and color
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of “white” and “nonwhite” is used.[/QUOTE]
Dude, that is referring to the race of the child, not the father. The circled part is the father's race. Native African born individuals used that designation.
Of course the child would not be "African", duh.
ax1
Legend
It was called Invalid Link Removed in 2012 when I first posted the hospital's about us link, so I dunno why that would matter to the topic.
ax1
Legend
It wasnt a racial category in 1961, but if he actually had the choice to fill the form out why not Kenyan? Perhaps he went with his tribal or ethnic race which in Kenya may have been Kikuyu, Luhya, Kalenjin, Luo, Kamba, Kisii, Mijikenda, Meru, Turkana, Maasai and some other minor tribes.
Really, in 61 he should be just a "negro" but I have to look into this more.
This is one of the minor details, the major one is that the document as a whole is fake.
ax1
Legend
F' Fox...you think I take these 9/11 debunkers and for the most part pro-Obama (Yes, Fox = pro-Obama) war mongers seriously?
What the hell was that? ROFL!
Misfit28
Well-known member
Dude, Kenya is a country in AFRICA. It lists his birthplace as Kenya on the damn form. So, actually African is just as accurate as Kenyan. Since it was a colony, not a damn country they probably listed African instead of Kenyan. Use a little logic. Occam's Razor goes a long way. Kenya didn't become independent (and The independent Republic of Kenya) until 1963. Before that, it was a British colony, known as the Kenya Colony. People did call it Kenya back then, but not sure if they would have called people from there Kenyan or just African.
No, no it isn't fake.
ax1
Legend
That made me chuckle, lol
I trust his photoshop skills much more than Fox telling the news though, so should you.
ax1
Legend
It wasnt a category in 61 so he would be classified as a negro, but we need more research to see if there are others that were pulled off as African at the tie.
You have no evidence the document is real other than your extreme faith in your religion of government worship.
ax1
Legend
The guy in the article is a certified Adobe instructor. I'm pretty sure he is better than your friend
For the record I don't trust Fox, just thought they would be the most biased in furthering the "birther" stuff.
Certified Adobe instructor huh? Good for him, Im proud of him.
You know what I have to say about this "certified adobe instructor" by the name of Jean Claude Tremblay?
He is certified to be a adobe instructor, he is not certified to have a true voice on mainstream news which is something Ive been telling people on here and at home for years, but Im a tin foil penis dude.
Be ready because I am about to blow your mind!
From World Net Daily June 21, 2011.
“Fox News expert denies he claimed birth certificate legit
Angry at network for refusing to retract its story on Obama document”
“The computer graphics expert Fox News relied upon to claim the birth certificate the White House released April 27 was legitimate insists that the network must retract the story, claiming it deliberately misquoted him and continues to ignore his repeated requests.
Jean Claude Tremblay told WND that that none of his comments would permit the conclusion that the Obama birth certificate is an authentic document.
“I no longer trust Fox News,” he said, expressing anger verging on disdain for the way he feels the network treated him. “Despite my protests, Fox News will not allow me to correct their story.”
Well....maybe if your own special certified computer dude cant confirm its real, somehow you can???? ROFL!
I told you not to trust 9/11 truther debunkers.
ax1
Legend
Not a penny of Nazi Sympathizer race baiter George Soros money!
I dont trust them with my soul either (more reliable than fox though imo) either but it was hilarious I found that.
ax1
Legend
In the end, what difference does it make?
Word, f' these people. All honesty Id vote for you over them any day.
Gutterpump
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
Ha this is amazing
Ha this is amazing
muscleupcrohn
Legend
If Arnold was born in America, maybe he'd follow in Trump's footsteps and run for President. He is hosting the Celebrity Apprentice now, and he does have more political experience than Trump, haha.Invalid Link Removed
Ha this is amazing
muscleupcrohn
Legend
That's great. There was an interesting interview with Cuban about politics and running for President/VP. I think I mentioned it somewhere in this thread. I think he said he leans towards being a libertarian, but with a bit more of a social safety net than most libertarians want, which seems like a good compromise that would make it more appealing to many liberals and/or mainstream people.
jswain34
Well-known member
And he's an intelligent, charismatic, non-jackass. He seems to be somewhat of an honest, decent dude too. He could enter the race tomorrow and I'd vote for him over any of the other 3.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Exactly. He's basically everything people like about Trump, but without the stupid things that make people hate him. He's not a "politician," he's a billionaire businessman, and he speaks his mind and isn't "PC," but he isn't a complete egomaniac, and doesn't say a bunch of stupid and offensive things. Cuban >>>>> Trump and/or Clinton.
jswain34
Well-known member
Bingo. #Cuban2020
ax1
Legend
Hope he would run as a independent, I'd consider him. Libertarian party still ok.
BamBam0319
Well-known member
Invalid Link Removed
5.7% of the Clinton Foundation budget actually went to charity in 2014...
$5.2 million out of $91.3 million.
While $34.8 million of that went to salaries, compensation, and employee benefits.
$50.4 million listed as "other expenses" and the last $851,000 was for "professional fundraising expenses."
5.7% of the Clinton Foundation budget actually went to charity in 2014...
$5.2 million out of $91.3 million.
While $34.8 million of that went to salaries, compensation, and employee benefits.
$50.4 million listed as "other expenses" and the last $851,000 was for "professional fundraising expenses."
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Having met people that have been in business with him (1 who currently still is), I can say he's not at Trump level, but is quite an offensive egomaniac. You kind of have to be to get to that level though and he has done some great things for Dallas.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
I agree that most billionaires, and probably most high-ranking politicians, are probably at least somewhat egomaniacs, but I agree he's not on Trump's level. When I say he's not offensive like Trump, I mean that he doesn't say pointlessly offensive things, like calling Mexicans rapists.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
So very true. I'd definitely vote for him if he was running this time. He seems like one of those people that is smart enough to stay away from the headache that comes with all of it though.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
You're probably right. He'll just stick to teasing us about running.
Misfit28
Well-known member
It's an operating foundation, which means most of the work is done by the foundation itself instead of providing grants to outside organizations to do the work.
Key difference.
Meanwhile, Trump's Foundation is funded mostly by other people's money and he used some of it to buy a six foot tall painting of himself.
Invalid Link Removed
Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation 4 stars, with 87% of donations going to charitable activities. As I said earlier, it doesn't give as many grants because the Foundation itself does most of the work that it supports.
Invalid Link Removed
From what I've seen, Trump's Foundation is a private non-operating foundation. He used it to buy "gifts" for Celebrity Apprentice guests and other such things. He basically spends other people's money to give the illusion that he is giving from his own pocket.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
He might do it eventually. He could be like Trump and just do it when he's older and just does it because he's done everything else and is bored lol. Or maybe Texas will name him king when they finally secede.
ax1
Legend
Just to add....and this is why those "conspiracy slogan" people always make me laugh to the floor when they use it...they are generally just victims of the actual system.
The term "conspiracy theory" was created by the CIA in 1967 as a form of psych ops to simply discredit those who oppose the official story and misinform the general population and hide state secrets.
Keep in mind, by law the CIA can post whatever propaganda they want into the media since the 50's through Mockingbird, and then further propelled and strengthened officially by law by the Obama administration.
This below is one of the reason why we have so many "conspiracy" slogan people in society today.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo released in 1976 under the Freedom of Information Act requested by the New York Times:
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
***
The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
***
4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:
a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.
***
b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …
***
c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.
***
d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.
***
f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.
g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….
5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Here are screenshots of part of the memo released in 1976 under the Freedom of Information Act requested by the New York Times:
Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
- Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
- Have Invalid Link Removed attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports
- Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
- Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
- Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
- Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
- Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
- Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
- Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
Socalmk6gti
Active member
Trump played the media like chess. Checkmate!
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
I lived through that watching it live.....I couldnt believe it but I was like wow...he really pulled a good one this time imo...CNN was going nuts!
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Socalmk6gti
Active member
Sounds like Hillary Clinton for sure
Socalmk6gti
Active member
Anyone watch Michelle Obamas speech? For the majority of it, it sounds like she is campaigning FOR Donald Trump. Up until she says HRC's name I was a bit confused. If you get a chance to watch:listen:read it you'll understand
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Do you have a link or know where she gave it?
Socalmk6gti
Active member
Invalid Link Removed
youngandfree
Well-known member
No one has commented about the 2 bombings and a mass stabbing yesterday that an ISIS group claimed. A pipe bomb went off in Jersey during a Marine run. Luckily no injuries there. Another bomb detonated in NYC in Chelsea neighborhood, with a second unexploded device found.
Socalmk6gti
Active member
Trump has. And Hillary has while looking like a drugged robot on her plane.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
What do you mean nobody has commented? Those two and the Minnesota stabbing are all in the news.