Originally Posted by scottwww
A conclusive answer with no foundational documentation is a useless conclusion after everyone has heard it at least once. That kind of response can be just as well gotten by a yes/no poll.
This is supposed to be a conversation. Asking what information people have, so that through collaboration all can gain a clearer understanding of the subject has the best chance of people coming to the truth, than blindly accepting another person's conclusion.
Since noone can be trusted to base their conclusions entirely on truth, why should those who don't know the answer blindly accept what others have accepted in their self interest?
Whatever happened to the scientific method? What happened to critical thinking? Should we all have checked our need to know at the door when Obama was elected? I think not. And I dare say that you probably somewhere make arguments, ask for information, in order to uncover truth when there is something you deem to be of some significance. Or do you accept everything as a matter of majority viewpoint? Certainly you realize that the majority is ignorant, and hopelessly so.
For someone who's sensitive to the tone of an argument, you sure know how to throw around the unjustified derogatory insults. You seem to be arguing with yourself; in other words, you're making assumptions and following premises that don't exist.
Look at what I said, then compare that to what you said. I said, "as a child, Obama would not lose US citizenship, regardless of the series of events that occurred". I also said, "with full awareness of the citizenship status of Obama's parents, he was deemed eligible to hold the office of President". Now what exactly are you saying? Are you asking me to prove those two statements? The latter statement is self-evident. The first statement was made by several people knowledgeable on the subject, and has not been questioned by anyone I'm aware of. I am not about to become an unpaid legal counsel, therefore I will not be checking-up on the statement, as I have all the reason to believe it is correct, given that it's consistent with reality. If you have an opposing view, it would be incumbent upon you to provide evidence.