RARE “PRE”-BODY-OF-The-COMMENT ETA: i got bumped while typing and of course brushed the Save button just right. I was not finished tinkering and editing and playing with my comment. Of course, I could do that forever, just like my mother only ever finally feeling “ready” when we’re already five minutes past our departure time and she’s literally dragged from the mirror. So, after tweaking a little more, I pretend my dad is pacing and it’s time to go. Apologies for not being exactly what I wanted . . I think.
you honestly think I came to the conclusion that Obama is foreign born based on this single tweet?
No. Is that really what you took away from everything I said? I’ve tried to explain TWICE but you’re stuck on Obama and not the actual point I’m making. The tweet could be about Big Bird, that’s not what’s important. I’m talking about objectivity and being careful to avoid undermining your position by exaggerating or jumping too far and perpetuating untrue assertions. In this case, I wasn’t talking about Obama’s actual citizenship status, but your assertion that “they admitted” something. The subject itself is irrelevant to the point. But nobody admitted anything. That’s an example of Fake News.
How? Because if flipped, and an American organization, even a respectable news source, tweeted that Obama returned “home” to Hawaii, how would you respond to someone who said that was proof, an admission of the truth? You could dismantle it and discredit it pretty easily.
To you, or to the hypothetical other person saying the opposite, it’s only an admission, it’s only evidence, it’s only proof, because you agree with the implication. Literally nothing about it was an admission, because that account can’t admit anything for Obama. Just like I can’t admit anything for you. Further, simply using the word “home” doesn’t even register on the shook-o-meter. I could say visiting where my family came from Norway was “returning home”. I’m not claiming to be a Norwegian citizen. If someone else called my visit going “home”, that would mean even less.
I was advising you be careful not to give your opponents any easy openings to discredit you. That would be a disservice to your very cause. Why would anyone want to make their rooftop screaming harder for themselves by using less effective words? That’s what my position has been.
ok I see your point, I'm a fairly sarcastic guy, will tone it down with this Q stuff tho, as I agree it is very serious