https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEubt6HpGhs

(March 15, 2015 at 11:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: I'm sorry, do you actually think that just joking about the obvious problems with your argument are going to make them go away?

You're right. I guess the 90% of joking and mocking replies in this thread must have rubbed off on me. It's odd that you waited for one joking reply from me to raise the issue. But that's typical of left-liberals who only have principles when it suits them. Team cheerleading, that's what it's all about isn't it?

Parkers, I will get to you in good time.

I'm a moderate who hates Obama and yet I still think your argument is weak to the point of stupidity. funny how that works, dipshit.

(March 15, 2015 at 8:33 pm)mralstoner Wrote:

(March 15, 2015 at 11:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: I'm sorry, do you actually think that just joking about the obvious problems with your argument are going to make them go away?

You're right. I guess the 90% of joking and mocking replies in this thread must have rubbed off on me. It's odd that you waited for one joking reply from me to raise the issue. But that's typical of left-liberals who only have principles when it suits them. Team cheerleading, that's what it's all about isn't it?

But it's not just the one reply, you've been brushing of and dismissing every single time this point has been raised, because it demonstrates so aptly how self serving and pointless your argument is. The exact argument you joked about has been around since the early pages, and you haven't even attempted to address it any of those times. Most likely because you can't.

And I never once disclosed my political leanings here, but thanks for just assuming because you think you can tar me with a broad brush; your baseless rhetorical nothings illustrate how barren your position is better than anything I could ever say.

(March 15, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The exact argument you joked about has been around since the early pages, and you haven't even attempted to address it any of those times. Most likely because you can't.

The core argument by me is this: open your freaking eyes and take a cold, hard look at these 3 characters and see which one Obama most resembles.

There's not much logic to it. It comes down to a visual judgement. After watching the documentary and studying all the family members, I can see as clear as day that Obama resembles Frank Marshall Davis and does not resemble the Kenyan.

The other facts about Obama's character, and his mother's nude photos etc, these are secondary. You don't need any of these arguments to see family resemblance.

Frankly I don't know how you can't see it, but there's no point arguing much further because it's a visual comparison test.

(Actually I do know how, because a week ago my mind would not have even bothered to take this subject seriously, but would have reflexively dismissed it as preposterous).

The strength of the documentary was probably not any particular arguments, which remain speculative, it's strength was merely that it grabbed your attention and forced you to look hard at the visual similarities between Obama and Frank.

Hey, ever noticed how Obama looks just like Obama? What if he's a time-traveler and he fathered himself? Hmmm???? hock:
mralstoner, when I was younger, I was the spitting image of Daniel Radcliffe. Now I'm slightly less the spitting image of Daniel Radcliffe, but we're still fairly similar. This doesn't mean we're related. There are certainly other people who look like me, but I've never seen them. There are certainly other people who look like Obama, but you've never seen them either. Keanu Reeves is the spitting image of two people who lived centuries ago. Jack Black is the spitting image of Paul Revere, who lived almost 200 years ago. Then there's Eddie Murphy (no comment needed):

If you've never mistook one person for a completely unrelated (or even partially related, even if only by circumstance) person, you simply haven't interacted with enough people. Judging from your conflation of two very distinct people (and I'd like to note that I suck at telling people apart by their faces; I'm much more likely to tell them apart by the way they dress, how they walk, or their hair - to me, the guy you say is Obama's father looks more like Morgan Freeman and Nelson Mandela), I suspect you at least haven't interacted much with black people. Note that this is not racism, nor am I calling you a racist. It's been proven that most of us have a hard time telling Chinese/Japanese/Korean people apart from one another because we simply do not interact enough with them, and the reverse is true as well.

Stoner, can you remember the exact time you lost your grip on reality?

Was it like a pin dropping or was it more of a gradual thing? Serious question.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: There's not much logic to it.

Well you got that part fucking right.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote:

(March 15, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The exact argument you joked about has been around since the early pages, and you haven't even attempted to address it any of those times. Most likely because you can't.

The core argument by me is this: open your freaking eyes and take a cold, hard look at these 3 characters and see which one Obama most resembles.

And the core argument fails because it is far too weak to overcome the reasonable presumption that his parents of record are his actual parents, despite whatever amateur physiognomy analysis you think you can bring to bear. Genetic inheritence can't be so easily parsed from photos.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: There's not much logic to it. It comes down to a visual judgement.

Exactly. Your 'visual judgment' is insufficient on its face to overcome the initial plausibility that the president's birth records are accurate.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: After watching the documentary and studying all the family members, I can see as clear as day that Obama resembles Frank Marshall Davis and does not resemble the Kenyan.

And we should respect your opinion on such matters why? I don't think he particularly looks like any of them, including Davis. But I'm not an expert on determining parentage from looking at photos of people's faces, if such an expertise even exists.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: The other facts about Obama's character, and his mother's nude photos etc, these are secondary. You don't need any of these arguments to see family resemblance.

They aren't secondary. They are completely irrelevant.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: Frankly I don't know how you can't see it, but there's no point arguing much further because it's a visual comparison test.

Calling it a 'test' dignifies it far beyond what it deserves.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: (Actually I do know how, because a week ago my mind would not have even bothered to take this subject seriously, but would have reflexively dismissed it as preposterous).

When something seems preposterous at first glance, it almost always actually is preposterous, and it should take strong evidence to persuade one otherwise. Like genetic sequencing.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: The strength of the documentary was probably not any particular arguments, which remain speculative, it's strength was merely that it grabbed your attention and forced you to look hard at the visual similarities between Obama and Frank.

Speculative and cherry-picked. It has some strength as propaganda.

(March 16, 2015 at 4:48 am)mralstoner Wrote: The core argument by me is this: open your freaking eyes and take a cold, hard look at these 3 characters and see which one Obama most resembles.

Yes, and under that logic, Keanu Reeves is immortal, Ken Ham is related to Dr Zaius, and all of the other ridiculous comparisons people have made are true too. That's kinda my point: your argument is so weak and unjustified that the exact same logic can be used to justify patently untrue things, if we take it seriously. It's a textbook reductio ad absurdum, and it works so well because what you're saying is already absurd.

Quote:There's not much logic to it. It comes down to a visual judgement. After watching the documentary and studying all the family members, I can see as clear as day that Obama resembles Frank Marshall Davis and does not resemble the Kenyan.

Okay, so first of all, why do you keep saying "the Kenyan," as though there's something wrong with that? The guy has a name, you know.

Secondly, given the same argument, have you ruled out time travel? It's a ridiculous point, but then, I'm working against a ridiculous argument; visual similarities are also used to determine if two images are of the same person, so aside from your predisposition to want to see what you want to see, how did you eliminate other possibilities, like that they are both the same person at different times in their life?

Quote:The other facts about Obama's character, and his mother's nude photos etc, these are secondary. You don't need any of these arguments to see family resemblance.

You also don't need a family resemblance to see family resemblance, if you think the only thing that denotes relation is how someone looks, and if you're desperate to see a family resemblance to confirm your conspiracy theory.

Quote:The strength of the documentary was probably not any particular arguments, which remain speculative, it's strength was merely that it grabbed your attention and forced you to look hard at the visual similarities between Obama and Frank.

Look at the hard visual similarities between Ken Ham and Doctor Zaius! The only possible solution is that they're related! Doctor Zaius is Ken Ham's father!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, you don't believe that? Typical of a leftist pinko commie!