The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1426

Post by verbalobe » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:24 pm

The cognitive dissonance is strong in the abomination...More dissonance than cognition.



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1427

Post by verbalobe » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:44 pm

In any case, for the small portion of that "response" that made any sense:





This statement was made in the context of trying to get his student visa extended.[~ YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL CONTEXT, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND SINCE I'VE BEEN IN A SIMILAR SITUATION OF BEING INTERROGATED BY A CONSULAR OFFICER (ABOUT A MARRIAGE THAT WAS FAKE). THE ATMOSPHERE IS ONE THAT CRIES OUT FOR FULL CANDID TRUTHFULNESS.


HE WAS BEING OPEN AND HONEST SINCE THAT WAS WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM. NO MOTIVATION WAS RELEVANT. JUST THE FACTS. HOW THE OFFICER MIGHT VIEW THEM WAS UP TO HIM, FOR BETTER OR WORSE. ~]


Mr. Nash takes this as a kind of statement against interests—assuming that an American child would help his case. In truth, the exact opposite is true. Mr. Obama wasn’t trying to get a green card, he was trying to get permission to stay in schoolI just love that not only does Nash know exactly how all women feel and behave (both in 1961 and now) from the moment of conception through childbirth to breastfeeding -- he also knows that Obama Sr would have felt and reacted during his visa interviews exactly as he, Nash, did during his!





He must have forgotten typing...


SPECIFIC SITUATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NORMS. OTHERWISE VARIABILITY WOULD NOT EXIST. INDIVIDUAL CHOICE WOULD NOT EXIST, NOR INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY....just moments before.





A curious oversight for such an inerrant, omniscient polymath.





But, as Nash points out at the end -- checkmate!!!!!!!





Luckily he's unaware of how many times we've been checkmated by birthers. Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama II, natural-born citizen of the USA and Hawai'i, is still President of the United States of America.



LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1428

Post by LM K » Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:50 pm

Limp-dick responded to me as well. I wonder why he didn't share his response here?





You need to provide proof that you are a U.S. citizen to enter the US. Thus, you need permission to cross the border. Your passport certifies citizenship.





[WHAT YOU "NEED" AND WHAT YOU NEEDED ARE NOT THE SAME. Past vs. Present. Learn to distinguish the difference. You already know that to go from Canada to the U.S. in 1961 only required a U.S. Driver's License. NOT a Passport.]







And baby boy Obama got a driver's license how? ;;)








So now everyone is supposed to know that you mean “any couple willing to adopt” even though you’ve ALWAYS said “Negro couple”? Agencies cannot provide ANY info to expecting mothers or prospective couples about anything other than their procedures for surrendering/adopting a child. They can say “this is how the process works” (we meet with you, have you fill out initial forms, etc). They cannot say “yes/no we have a couple that can adopt your infant now”. You’ve ALWAYS stressed that agencies would do that, but it was illegal for them to do so. You claim that SAD wouldn’t leave her infant without that info. You’ve ALWAYS maintained that she would need the adoption to be immediate, so the answer of “We have a family who could take in a Negro child” would not be adequate according to you. BUT AGENCIES CAN’T ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE LAWS AT THE TIME FORBADE THEM FROM DOING SO. They cannot, by law, say yes or no we have a couple waiting to adopt a Negro baby. And you have ALWAYS been specific about parents being willing to adopt a Negro child.





I could buy that one agency would break the law, but multiple agencies? Nope.





[BREAK THE LAW??? WHAT LAW? YOU HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO QUOTE ANY BECAUSE NONE EXISTED IN WASHINGTON STATE NOR BRITISH COLUMBIA IN 1961. WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO PRETEND THAT THE PAST AND THE PRESENT ARE IDENTICAL?]




You are the one operating under the belief that the past and present are the same.





I've researched adoption laws. I provided you with sources, which you ignore :notlistening: because they are inconvenient for your scenario. You refuse to even open my links ... you've admitted that. :-





But I will provide you with more information below. You'll ignore it, but others might find it interesting.





Now you claim that SAD married Obama Sr., against her parents will and his parents will even though hoping an agency will give her the info she wanted? That is absurd.





YOU ARE IMAGINING THINGS AGAIN. WHAT LITTLE I'VE SAID ABOUT THE MARRIAGE IS THAT IT MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN OBLIGATORY IF FOR ONLY THE ONE REASON OF AVOIDING GIVING BIRTH TO A CHILD OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK]




Oh brother. To quote you:





MARRIAGE WAS TO PREVENT THE CHILD, IF NOT ADOPTED, FROM BEING BORN A BASTARD, WHICH WAS AVOIDED.




You completely ignore my question. Why would SAD go to such lengths if she hoped to surrender her infant? Why fight with families to marry if she was going to adopt out her infant? Why do you assume that Obama Sr. didn't want his son at the time he and Ann married? Just because he abandoned them later is not evidence that he didn't want his child when he learned of the pregnancy.





SAD could have married Obama Sr. later in pregnancy if she was so worried about having a back up plan. Her parents would have been happier if she had waited.





Your assertion is bizarre.





In the 60s, and earlier, there were homes for unwed mothers. SAD didn’t have to marry Obama Sr. if she was truly hoping to surrender her child. Read “The Girls Who Went Away”, which I’ve mentioned to you repeatedly. If SAD went to a home for unwed mothers, the agency would have had months to find a couple willing to adopt a Negro infant. Agencies weren’t limited to their city. Couples could have been recruited from many areas (some agencies even preferred that adoptive couples live in a different community to maintain confidentiality). Confidentiality was legally mandatory.





[THE POSTULATION IS THAT SHE LIVED AT HOME UNTIL SOMETIME DURING ABOUT THE 6TH MONTH AND THEN, WITH NO HOPE IN HAWAII, SHE MOVED TO SEATTLE TO TRY THERE AND LIVE THERE AND BE WITH FRIENDS THERE, AND GO TO SCHOOL THERE AND MAYBE RAISE THE CHILD THERE IF ADOPTION FAILED.]




What part of "Confidentiality was legally mandatory" is so difficult to understand?





You maintain that SAD contacted adoption agencies (plural) in 3 cities. Your scenario requires that multiple agencies in each of these cities violated confidentiality laws. Why would multiple agencies do so for a 17 year old girl?





And what does your response have to do with my explanation of how this would have worked? You keep ignoring/dodging my questions, coward!





BTW, here is evidence that Hawaiian agencies were not limited to [link]adopting out biracial children to other states,http://www.gsadoptionregistry.com/hawai ... awaii.html[/link]:





See the child born 2-9-62. Child born in Honolulu, adopted in Camden, NJ.


See child born 4-30-63. Child born in Honolulu, adopted in Santa Maria, CA.


2-6-64


7-4-65


5-15-64 quote from the adoptee:


Information: At the time of my adoption there were a lot of mixed raced babies up for adoption. newspaper articles were published in the local papers about the babies. that is how my adoptive parents found out about me. my adoption was done through the state.




One adoptee mentions that his birth mother may have worked with the following to surrender her infant:





Queen Liliokalani Adoption Agency, Salvation Army, Booth Memorial home for unwed mothers




and more ......








But wait, there's more. Canada didn't allow single mothers to leave the hospital with her infant. Note the word "hospital". SAD would not have walked out of a hospital in Canada with her Negro infant. Infants of color were given to white families.





[link]Canada's "Baby Scoop Era",http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Scoop_Era[/link] refers to the WWII postwar period from 1945 to the 1990s, when over 400,000 unmarried pregnant persons, mostly aged 15–19 (usually Caucasian), were targeted for their yet-to-be-born infants, simply because they were unmarried with a commodity. A large number of these young women were confined as inmates in maternity (group)"homes," which were managed by religious orders, such as the Salvation Army, The Catholic Church, The United Church and The Anglican Church etc. These maternity "homes" were heavily funded by the state. There were over 70 maternity homes in Canada which housed between 20 and 200 pregnant women at a time. [highlight]In Canadian maternity "homes" and hospitals, up to 100% of babies were stolen from their legal mothers and trafficked for adoption purposes.[/highlight]These newborns were stolen under an illegal secret [highlight]Health and Welfare protocol.[/highlight] In addition to being exploited for their reproduction, these young women were subjected to multiple abuses, including sex abuse, forced unpaid labour, and physical and mental torture.





The babies born to these mothers were abducted in unprecedented numbers in [highlight]Canadian hospitals under a system that barred these new mothers from accessing their own infants and claiming their legal right to their motherhood.[/highlight] In a system that viewed women as breeders for the state, the girls' reproduction and the resultant product of their reproduction: i.e. their newborns, were exploited in order to [highlight]replace the pregnancy and baby that the white infertile couples were unable to produce.[/highlight]





These crimes were committed with the intent to deprive these young women of their motherhood and babies:


.....





The term Baby Scoop Era is similar to the term Sixties Scoop, which was coined by Patrick Johnston, author of Native Children and the Child Welfare System.[18] "Sixties Scoop" refers to the [highlight]Canadian practice, beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the late 1980s, of apprehending unusually high numbers of Native children from their families and fostering or adopting them out, usually into white families.[19][/highlight] A similar event happened in Australia where Aboriginal children, sometimes referred to as the Stolen Generation, were removed from their families and placed into internment camps, orphanages and other institutions.




[link]Baby Scope Era,http://babyscoopera.com/adoption-abuse- ... surrender/[/link]





[link]“Adoption was cloaked in secrecy,http://babyscoopera.com/adoption-articl ... rs-rights/[/link]. Adoptions were arranged by an agency or other intermediaries, such as doctors or lawyers, who chose the adoptive parents. [highlight]A mother had no control over who would adopt her child.[/highlight] Sometimes she saw her child once or twice after delivery, sometimes not at all. She was rarely given the opportunity to hold her baby because it was believed that she would then find it too difficult to place him for adoption. Adoptive parents were assured that the final adoption records would be sealed by the courts and that they need not fear future intrusion from the mother. Open Adoption Part 1 of 2, National Adoption Information Clearinghouse




[link]Since the time I started searching for my daughter,http://www.originscanada.org/resources/ ... erta-1960/[/link] and talked to dozens of people about these issues, I’ve started to realize that a lot of younger people do not REALLY understand how things were back in the late 50′s and early 60′s, and some really don’t understand most of us girls did not have ANY choices regarding our babies. I know that the choices girls have to make today are really tough, hard, choices but at least they do have choices. Many of us did not have any. There was absolutely no support for us to keep our babies and we were judged and condemned harshly for getting pregnant without being married.




If you honestly think that SAD could approach adoption agencies for information, be given that information and not coerced into surrendering her infant, even a gasp, Negro infant, than I am convinced that you are neurological impaired. And racist. If you think that unmarried, pregnant mothers were given rights, you are ridiculous (at 17, SAD had fewer legal rights anyway).





Now, before you suddenly decide that, in your opinion, Obama Sr. had a say in this, remember that you have asserted that Obama Sr. didn't love SAD, didn't want this infant and was willing to allow her to go from adoption agency to adoption agency in hope of finding a couple to adopt her Negro child. What Canadian hospital would believe that SAD was married when her husband wasn't with her and her identification was from Hawaii? What husband, in 1961, would allow his wife to go to Canada to give birth and surrender his child? And why would any adoption agency take SAD's word that her infant would be black? She was white. In Canada (and elsewhere), that would sound like a lie by an unwed mother hoping to keep her newborn. And as my links show, Canadians were adopting non-white infants.





You can't have it both ways, Nash.








So, you want folks to believe that SAD married, even though she truly didn’t have to? Did she hide her plan from her new husband? Why would he have married her with the understanding that she wanted the infant to be adopted? He wouldn’t have. The couple was in love. Many witnesses have attested to this.





[HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THAT IS HILARIOUS! THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!]





[I PERCEIVE THAT YOUR ARE IN LA-LA-LAND. You see, there is real marriage and then there is pretend, legal, paper marriage. It prevents the social embarrassment of being pregnant and having a child outside of marriage. A very, very undesirable thing back then, which was presumed to be something that could haunt a respectable person for life, damaging their reputation. A simply paper marriage secured her reputation so no one could ever point an accusing finger at her and proclaim “SHE HAD A BLACK BASTARD BABY WITH A MAN WHO WAS NOT HER HUSBAND! SHE HAS LOW MORAL CHARACTER AND EVEN WORSE JUDGEMENT. YOU SHOULD NOT HIRE HER.”




I understand marrying to give a child his father's name. However, you assert that SAD intended to surrender her child. I show what process she could have used if she wanted to find parents for her Negro child ... a process that worked and gave an agency plenty of time to find a couple willing to adopt a Negro baby.





But this option is ignored by you because it opens the possibility that Obama was born in the US (and he was born in the US, asshole) and thus eligible to be POTUS (OBAMA IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!).





You know nothing about adoption.





The word surrender was and is the term used in adoption. If a woman hopes to adopt out her child, she is hoping to surrender the care of the infant to an adoption agency and adoptive couple. The word surrender does not mean abandon. The word is the term used for all adoptive processes. The term is used on the adoption forms! I’m using the word correctly for your scenario. According to your scenario, SAD was hoping to immediately find a couple to give her child to for adoption. The CORRECT term is SAD was hoping to immediately find a couple to surrender her child to for adoption. This is more evidence that you don’t understand how adoption works.





[YOU CONTINUE TO RUN AWAY FROM THE SCENARIO. THERE WAS NO ADOPTION POSSIBLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO COUPLES WILLING OR WANTING TO ADOPT A NEGRO BABY. NOTHING ABOUT THE ADOPTION PROCESS IS EVEN RELEVANT. IT WOULD BE THE SAME FROM THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SITUATION IF THERE WERE NO PREGNANT WOMEN WILLING TO SURRENDER THEIR BABY.


NO BABY, NO ADOPTION. NO ADOPTIVE PARENTS,… NO ADOPTION, AND THUS NO SURRENDER. SHE WAS NOT GOING TO ABANDON HER CHILD TO A MOTHERLESS LIFE!


AS AN ONLY CHILD SHE WOULD KNOW A LOT ABOUT LONELINESS, AND WAS NOT GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSIGNING THE FLESH OF HER FLESH TO EVEN GREATER LONELINESS.




"Nothing about the adoption process is relevant."





=)) =)) =)) =)) =))





So, SAD tried to get her child adopted in 3 different cities, but nothing about the adoption process is relevant?





That is one of the most absurd things you've said!





So, using the correct terminology is deviating from your scenario?! =)) If mother wishes to have her child adopted, she wishes to surrender her infant. You can't even understand this very basic concept!





I can't wait to read your response, limp-dick. I've provide you with a plethora of adoption details. You're wrong. So very, very wrong.



User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1429

Post by verbalobe » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:26 pm

YOU CONTINUE TO RUN AWAY FROM DEBUNK THE SCENARIOFixed it for ya.





Have you learned to read yet?



LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1430

Post by LM K » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:38 pm

:coffee: =D> :banana:



User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11606
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1431

Post by Whatever4 » Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:01 pm

Nice research, Ms. Shrinky Lady! SO the only way Nash's scenario works is by completely ignoring the realities of 1961 in Canada and the US. But then, his experience with reality is pretty limited. :roll:


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1432

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:58 pm

Nice research, Ms. Shrinky Lady! SO the only way Nash's scenario works is by completely ignoring the realities of 1961 in Canada and the US. But then, his experience with reality is pretty limited. :roll:For his scenario to work he would have to ignore reality from that time period up until now. The dick less wonder would have to live in an alternative universe. Maybe that's what happened maybe Nash here is from a parallel universe.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1433

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:52 am

[quote name=obama--nation]this is my reply to the comment at obama--nation.com





Slartibartfast says:


July 5, 2014





Not only is Mr. Nash’s scenario not consistent with the norms of both childbirth and adoption in the early sixties,


[~ SPECIFIC SITUATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH NORMS. OTHERWISE VARIABILITY WOULD NOT EXIST. INDIVIDUAL CHOICE WOULD NOT EXIST, NOR INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY.~]




As Verbie pointed out, you apply this standard hypocritically. Norms are the norm because they are how things usually happen. While unusual things can be possible, they are, well, unusual---therefore, any unusual elements which you incorporate into a scenario make it less likely and (rightfully) engender more skepticism.








but he’s also misrepresented the statement of Barack Obama Sr. that he and Dr. Dunham were considering adoption.





[~ MISREPRESENTING? THAT MISREPRESENTS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY READ. I REPRESENT THAT HE MENTIONED THAT ADOPTION WAS BEING CONSIDERED. I REPRESENT THAT ANY YOUNG VIVACIOUS, AMBITIOUS, ADVENTUROUS, INTELLIGENT COLLEGE-BOUND WOMAN WOULD NOT HAVE WELCOMED THE NEWS THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT AND WAS GOING TO HAVE A BABY WHETHER SHE WANTED TO OR NOT.


THE FIRST AND ONLY THING TO COME TO MIND WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTION, JUST AS POST-ROE V WADE THEY'VE ALL THOUGHT OF ABORTION. ~J




So, in other words, you are not only was Dr. Dunham the norm amongst "young, vivacious, ambitious, adventurous, intelligent college-bound" women, but that she couldn't possibly be anything else. Abortion was an option at the time (although not necessarily a safe or legal one) and just like women have decided to give children up for adoption after Roe v. Wade some women decided (or were forced) to have abortions before it. Dr. Dunham was very much her own person and if there is one thing that you've clearly shown is that you have no idea how someone in her position would have thought.





This statement was made in the context of trying to get his student visa extended.





[~ YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL CONTEXT, WHICH I DO UNDERSTAND SINCE I'VE BEEN IN A SIMILAR SITUATION OF BEING INTERROGATED BY A CONSULAR OFFICER (ABOUT A MARRIAGE THAT WAS FAKE). THE ATMOSPHERE IS ONE THAT CRIES OUT FOR FULL CANDID TRUTHFULNESS.


HE WAS BEING OPEN AND HONEST SINCE THAT WAS WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF HIM. NO MOTIVATION WAS RELEVANT. JUST THE FACTS. HOW THE OFFICER MIGHT VIEW THEM WAS UP TO HIM, FOR BETTER OR WORSE. ~]




Again, you assert that Barack Obama Sr. must have conformed to the norm. Since it is almost certain that there were things he was less than forthcoming about (such as his first wife back in Kenya), we have no way of knowing that he would have been fully candid on this subject (he might have been in for a penny, in for a pound, so to speak). Because we don't know that he was completely honest, it behooves us to consider statements he makes that are against his interests more credible and statements that are self-serving less credible. Saying that they were considering adoption, true or not (and the evidence suggests not) was helpful to his case---and therefore should be viewed with suspicion unless there is corroboration (which there isn't).





Mr. Nash takes this as a kind of statement against interests—assuming that an American child would help his case. In truth, the exact opposite is true. Mr. Obama wasn’t trying to get a green card, he was trying to get permission to stay in school


[~BAD CHOICE OF WORDS. HE WAS NOT TRYING TO STAY IN SCHOOL SINCE THAT WAS GUARANTEED. HE WAS TRYING TO STAY IN THE COUNTRY. ~]




He couldn't very well say in school if he was forced to leave the country, could he? Too also, I said he was trying to get PERMISSION to stay in school---which is exactly what he was doing. Just out of curiosity, do you quibble about insignificant details because you just blindly assume that anything we say is false or because, owing to the fallacious assumptions you've swallowed, you have no idea how to tell important points from trivial ones?





a kid would mean either time and money diverted from academic pursuits





[NEITHER COULD BE PRESUMED, BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE, IT IS DONE ALL OF THE TIME BY MEN WHO FATHER CHILDREN, AND IS UNRELATED TO THE SORT OF MORAL TURPITUDE THAT WOULD RESULT IN EXPULSION.]




There are three options: 1. They would surrender President Obama; 2. Obama Sr. could be a deadbeat dad (uninvolved in raising him); or 3. He could spend some time and money as a result of being involved in his son's life. Yes, men do this all of the time, but that isn't the point. Barack Obama Sr. wasn't facing expulsion, he was attempting to get a student visa. Of the three possibilities, the first would be the best in terms of his case to have his visa extended.








or impregnating an American and then leaving her to take care of the baby on her own—neither of which would be very helpful.


[~GEE, WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE BABY BEING ADOPTED? HOW COULD SHE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF A BABY THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE? Hmmmm? ~]




We aren't talking about Dr. Dunham or what happened here, we're talking about Obama Senior's attempt to get a visa. These were the two alternatives he had to suggesting that they were considering adoption. Which is why what he said, true or not, was self-serving.








On the other hand, saying that the couple was considering adoption wouldn’t hurt his chances of getting the visa extended. [AND SO THERE WAS NO REASON TO HIDE HER THOUGHTS]




Or there was every reason to hide her intention to keep the baby. Did you ever learn any kind of critical thinking skills?








In other words, rather than the statement about considering adoptions being against Obama Senior’s interests (which lends it more credibility), it is actually self-serving, which invites greater skepticism, particularly since this is the sole piece of evidence which suggests any consideration of President Obama being put up for adoption.





[~I DON'T SEE WHERE IN THAT REASONING THERE IS ANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FACT THAT THE ADOPTION DECISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS CONSENT. A FATHER ONLY HAS, AND PERHAPS HAD PARENTAL RIGHTS OVER A LIVING BABY, NOT AN UNBORN FETUS.





We aren't talking about an adoption decision, we're talking about what Obama Sr. represented to the State Department in his attempt to get a student visa. His paternal rights were completely irrelevant. No one is arguing about whether or not he could have forced the issue (either way), just about whether or not his statement that they were considering adoption was in his best interest.





ANN COULD TRAVEL ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SHE CARED TO AND HAVE HER CHILD THERE, AND GIVE IT UP FOR ADOPTION, WITHOUT HIM EVEN KNOWING IF SHE EVER GAVE LIVE BIRTH OR NOT, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING HE COULD SAY OR DO TO STOP HER.





Had she wanted to give President Obama up for adoption, all of the evidence suggests that she could have easily done so with little to no fuss without leaving Hawai'i. Furthermore, there is no evidence that she was in Washington before mid-September, let alone before August 4th.








IF FACT, IN THE NOTES FROM HIS INS MEETING IN LATER AUGUST '61, HE APPARENTLY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT HE HAD BECOME A FATHER SINCE HE DID NOT MENTION IT AT ALL.


DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING THAT INFORMATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIKELY SINCE IT WOULD CERTAINLY EVENTUALLY BE MADE KNOWN. ~]




So what? They may never have lived together as a family. We already know that Dr. Dunham painted a much more appealing picture of her ex-husband for her young son than reality did. Personally, I think that giving President Obama a positive, if absent, father figure was incredibly wise on the part of Dr. Dunham. But, in the context of your "scenario", it matters not at all.








So, Mr. Nash, it has now been demonstrated that your scenario was based on assumptions that are, at best, not nearly as reliable as you thought and, at worst, almost certainly erroneous. Not to mention that one of the things being called into question is whether adoption was seriously considered AT ALL.


In light of this, do you think that there is reason to reconsider your scenario? If so, why shouldn’t we just throw it out altogether? If not, why? Do you only consider evidence that you believe supports your preconceived conclusions?


Which do you choose to give up, Mr. Nash, your Vancouver scenario or your integrity?





[~UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOUR MASTER, LORD BARACKULA, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, SO IT SEEMS BOTH WILL REMAIN INTACT. BUT JUST AS SOON AS SOME OBAMA-LOVER CAN PRESENT SOME REAL EVIDENCE OR LOGIC TO CRIPPLE THE SCENARIO, I WILL BE QUITE READY TO ADMIT “CHECK-MATE”.





Your scenario hasn't just been crippled, it's quadriplegic. We're at the point where you're lying on the ground screaming "Come back! I'll gnaw your legs off!" As for being "Obama-lovers", not everyone here is a fan of President Obama, and even those of us who support him have things that he's done which we don't like (drone strikes, for instance, or bailing on the public option). Furthermore, there is no longer anything you and your ilk can do that will impact President Obama or his legacy in any way---certainly I don't feel any need to protect him from anyone, least of all you. As a result, comments like the above make you appear to be nothing more than a foolish extremist.








BUT INSTEAD IT CONTINUES TO APPEAR THAT I AM THE ONE SEEING YOU IN A CHECK-MATED POSITION SINCE ALL OF THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE HOLLOW -FACTUALLY OR LOGICALLY.


THAT IS HOW REALITY IS, IT DOESN’T GIVE YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT. ~




You mean the counter arguments which contained the links that you didn't follow? Or the ones you've misrepresented? Or those you've ignored? We've made arguments that are factual, arguments that are logical and arguments that are probabilistic---they all agree on one thing: you are, quite simply, wrong.




"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1434

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:57 am

Limp-dick responded to me as well. I wonder why he didn't share his response here?Prolly cuz yer a wimminz. Or maybe he's just sweet on me. All we know about him is that the only way he was able to get a woman to (even fake) marry him was in an immigration scam---maybe that's because he isn't interested in the ladies. Not that there's anything wrong with it.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9626
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1435

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:25 am

If SAD was so intent on adoption that she was willing to do all that convoluted traveling, and she was just as adamant that the adoptive parents were already lined up, why did she wait so damn long? And why marry BO Sr to begin with? Couldn't she have started the adoption process the minute she found out she was pregnant and avoided the marriage altogether? Why wait until her 8th month before scrambling around to place the baby? If she intended to give him up anyway, why bother with the marriage? She wouldn't have a kid, so no need for a husband to save face..



LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1436

Post by LM K » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:07 pm

Now my feelings are double-hurt!





Nash continues his "I won" posts on his website.





[link]The Failing, Flailing Discombobulation of Obama’s Babies,http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... a-zealots/[/link]





~a few choice excepts from my time in thefogbow.com quarantined toilet as the vermin there attempted to filet my Seattle-Vancouver Scenario, but failed. The resident genius demons there are exceedingly clever is their human insights, but their real purpose is nothing other than deflection, obfuscation, and delegitimation of anything that dares question the impeccable pedigree of the Great One, -the socialist’s American “Dear Leader”.


~note that these comments are the one’s that are fit to print. You can’t begin to imagine the ones that were not.I'm called a baby :(( and nothing I wrote is quoted or addressed! :(( :((





I'm devastated. :swoon:











Slartibartfast: Besides, I thought that you earned your money and were leaving-





[my lying account of a $1,200 bet that I couldn't get 1,200 responses at the famous fogbow, which I concocted when that number was racked up. And which therefore was my pretend swan song of goodbye to sewer town.]Money??? What money? What are you talking about???


Thank you for providing unimpeachable evidence of just how damn gullible you are! Like a third grader. Or a worshipful devotee. Does dishonesty not even exist in your flat-world?We's been tricked wif tricky!



User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15212
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1437

Post by kate520 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:12 pm

What?! No mention of the vast majority of members who have completely and utterly ignored him?! Or those who find him just too fucking childish and boring to care?!I'm hurt, too, LM K. I suspect his attitude has a lot to do with, as Slarti put it, wimmins.


DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1438

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:46 pm

Nash's government check will shortly be in his Fed-backed bank account. He'll be quiet for a few days. And then more infantile smear spreading and claims of "I won! I won!"He really should join up with Taitz.



User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1439

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:56 pm

I find it entirely funny that he was insulted when he was compared to Mario and yet he leaves us by pulling a mario. Did he really think he was fooling anyone when he claimed he made a bet with a friend? He has no friends.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1440

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:59 pm

The abomination is, however, an expert on immigration, women, pregnancy, child birth and adoption. (Among other things.) So expert, in fact, that I doubt he has ever had a passport or a meaningful relationship with a woman or a child. He just sits in his doublewide all day spreading smears.



User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1441

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:22 pm

The abomination is, however, an expert on immigration, women, pregnancy, child birth and adoption. (Among other things.) So expert, in fact, that I doubt he has ever had a passport or a meaningful relationship with a woman or a child. He just sits in his doublewide all day spreading smears. :D --> Of course not! None of them would be worthy of his mighty intellect and awesome genes. --> :D



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1442

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:35 pm

LM K,In the abomination's new screed:And that’s just a cursory view of the general problems above; I’m not about to go line-by-line in detailing the factual errors, logical fallacies, and unreasonable demands.[AND THAT IS THE STORY OF MY EXPERIENCE AS AN EXPOSER OF THE OBAMA FRAUDULENCE, THEY JUST REFUSE, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, TO GO LINE BY LINE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT THE TRUTH THAT THEY DON'T WANT THEIR READERS TO KNOW. SO INSTEAD THEY SIMPLY RELY ON CRITICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT IS CONTAINED IN WHAT THEY ARE ATTACKING BUT WITHOUT THE COURAGE TO REPEAT IT.~]Apparently, the fact that you and I had both gone line-by-line through his responses to our comments on his website within the last few days doesn't count.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1443

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:40 pm

Paraphrasing the abomination: There is no legitimate basis for what Mr. Nash believes because neither he, nor his word, are legitimate, unbiased, non-partisan, or honest.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Gnarly Goat
Posts: 2020
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:19 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1444

Post by Gnarly Goat » Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:08 pm

What?! No mention of the vast majority of members who have completely and utterly ignored him?! Or those who find him just too fucking childish and boring to care?!I must confess this thread is vastly more enjoyable with him set to 'Foe'.


"Don't waste time mourning. Organize." - Joe Hill

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1445

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:07 pm

What?! No mention of the vast majority of members who have completely and utterly ignored him?! Or those who find him just too fucking childish and boring to care?!I must confess this thread is vastly more enjoyable with him set to 'Foe'.And it is amusing to hear it reported that both Nash and Apuzzo are safe in their little nursery blog sites screaming "I won! I won! I won! I beated those nasty stupid Fogbots! I won! I won! I won!"But each evening, Mr. Obama goes to sleep in the White House, still the twice-elected President and a natural born citizen of Hawai'i and the U.S. And none of Nash's screeching or Apuzzo's wailing wll change that. Soooo saaaaad....



LM K
Posts: 8257
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1446

Post by LM K » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:18 pm

LM K,In the abomination's new screed:And that’s just a cursory view of the general problems above; I’m not about to go line-by-line in detailing the factual errors, logical fallacies, and unreasonable demands.[AND THAT IS THE STORY OF MY EXPERIENCE AS AN EXPOSER OF THE OBAMA FRAUDULENCE, THEY JUST REFUSE, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, TO GO LINE BY LINE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT THE TRUTH THAT THEY DON'T WANT THEIR READERS TO KNOW. SO INSTEAD THEY SIMPLY RELY ON CRITICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT IS CONTAINED IN WHAT THEY ARE ATTACKING BUT WITHOUT THE COURAGE TO REPEAT IT.~]Apparently, the fact that you and I had both gone line-by-line through his responses to our comments on his website within the last few days doesn't count. =)) =)) =)) Limp-dick is amusing. His tantrums are quite funny. :-bd



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1447

Post by Slartibartfast » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:29 pm

I don't think it is a tantrum so much as an attempt to brag (about how virtuous he is compared to us heathens)---which he seems to suck as badly at as he does at making analogies---but YMMV.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1448

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:26 pm

He is getting ready to celebrate. His government check should arrive tomorrow.



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1449

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:31 pm

Wait a sec, I just realized something...


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6984
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1450

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:35 pm

I "started" this thread.8-) :towel: Sekrit Stuffs!
check the title.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”