Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
No, because there's a mountain of evidence to prove that everything's legit. Birth announcements in the newspaper from 1960 whatever, the entity that issued the original document saying "yes, this is a real and true document, shut up you birthers are crazy"...but that's all discounted because someone who opened up Photoshop didn't like what they saw? That's sketchy "evidence" at best. When you weigh the two against each other, there's really no contest. The birthers are asking someone to believe that there's a fraud on a massive scale, involving the deceased parents of the man who would be president, the hospital he was born in, the state of Hawaii all the way up to and including the entire U.S. government, and the evidence they have for that is the say-so of amateur Photoshop jockeys.
Grasping at shreds of dubious evidence and discounting every piece of evidence to the contrary, no matter what it is or how solid it is, highlights the cognitive bias in certain people and is the main reason why they should be ignored and discounted as loons.
|
I'm not saying he wasn't born wherever he says he was, but I am intruigued by the amount of faith you have in what you're told. You sound very certain. I do know that a birth certificate (as well as many documents stored in various courthouses around the country) are very easy targets for manipulation. I wouldn't think "fraud on a massive scale" would have been necessary 10 years ago for Obama to have his original birth certificate altered (before he was on the national stage). It would only take a small bribe to the right person. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I know it isn't anywhere near impossible. And ridiculing people who don't share your certainty over something you really no nothing about doesn't make your case stronger.
