CSNbbs

What.....

Wait for it...............

ANOTHER ZOMBIE LIE!


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...l-no-ther/

You challenging for Fit's title these days?

Bloomberg/Politico news says you're right AND wrong Mach..

Quote:The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: “All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,” he wrote. “Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Note they do say that this was not a birther issue: But... Politico backs up the above and then adds a bit of their own to the story

From Politico: (liberal leaning POLITICO)

Quote:The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign announcement. (See: Obama kin: Birther rumors 'a shame')

All through that year, the Obama campaign – with the affirmation of most leaders of both parties – aggressively battled that smear by emphasizing his Christian faith. Obama’s controversial but emphatically Christian pastor emerged as a campaign issue and the belief that he was a Muslim seemed to lose traction. (See: Clinton: Birther claims 'ludicrous')

Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.)

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

So basically Politico is stating that your article from Politifact ignores some other important details... (*and I do note that they use Snopes, who should always be taken with a grain of salt*)

But they do put a direct name to one of the first to go public with it later in the Plitico article, and it wasn't DJT.

Quote:But while the identity of the First Birther is lost to the mists of chain email, one of the first to put his name to the theory was Phil Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general who had spent the previous years accusing President George W. Bush of complicity in the Sept. 11 attack.

Berg filed a complaint in federal District court on Aug. 21, 2008, that alleged, “Obama carries multiple citizenships and is ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because the Obama cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice for the nomination,” the suit claims.

It's been a Hillary thing. Nobody really denies that except the most ardent of the willfully ignorant types.

Well the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact cites no evidence of it. So quit using it.


So let it be written so let it be done..................

I'm just going to go back to this thread and copy and paste it in any thread that the nasty zombie lie creeps up into.

Did that particular article win a Pulitzer? Nope.. so trying to say this article is better than that article is a fallacies-based argument, Mach.

I've given you clips from two articles that say the Politifact article is again, both RIGHT in some of it's statements and WRONG by omission of other statements at the same time.

If you can point out something that says that the Politico and Bloomberg articles are off in their assessments, I'm more than happy to see that.

But just because "I like what this article says more than what that article says' isn't an argument.. it's a tantrum.

Crooked Hilary probably made up that website that I didnt click on to deflect.

(09-22-2016 02:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Well the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact cites no evidence of it. So quit using it.


So let it be written so let it be done..................

I'm just going to go back to this thread and copy and paste it in any thread that the nasty zombie lie creeps up into.

Appeal to authority...

Logical fallacy

Try again Mack...

"Did that particular article win a Pulitzer? Nope.. so trying to say this article is better than that article is a fallacies-based argument, Mach"

Wow you are such a joke. I love how you use such ridiculous logic to discredit something.

John you're getting desperate again...

Again, Mach made the statement that the "Politifact" article was apparently more valid than the "politico" article because Politifact had a Pulitzer in it's history.

So did the New York Times and a few other newspapers, and I don't ever trust a word they say without a second or even third look... (and hell, I'm no believer in Politico either)

(09-22-2016 03:01 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]John you're getting desperate again...

Again, Mach made the statement that the "Politifact" article was apparently more valid than the "politico" article because Politifact had a Pulitzer in it's history.

So did the New York Times and a few other newspapers, and I don't ever trust a word they say without a second or even third look... (and hell, I'm no believer in Politico either)

being called a joke should be taken as a badge of honor DSF!

She started it. Period.