Reply #1: They still don't understand. [View All]

[RandomThoughts]

If they were correct, then they would still be going after it wrong, and my guess is they are not correct, and it would not matter.

But the point is that they don't understand, if they were correct, and people were not able to see it, then the problem would be the entire media system.

In other words, if there was a birther issue, and as I said that is irrelevant, and not able to prove.

Then to fix it would be to remove the elements that don't show that, and that would include the groups that go after Bill of Rights, and form consolidations, since the core of the issue is following of law, not a birther issue, if it was a real issue.


In my view it is orchestrated by pick and choose, people talking about that issue are shown on media to not show important issues.


But if they were right, they are still going about it wrong, since if they were right the problem would not be showing that, since the problem would be that they could be right and drowned out, or not heard. And that very usage is to make someone feel correct, and nothing they can do about it. Hence you fight battles that have both relevance, make sense, and can be shown to people as a correct arguement.

If they were right they picked something that is not observable without a source many already believe. They are fighting using 'documents' while saying documents are being faked by the fact that such an issue would not be known.




I am not saying the issue is real, or there position is, I am saying they are fighting on the wrong battle field even if they were right. They would be fighting in a no win battlefield, by fighting for something that can only be proven by trust of source, and in there case, it would require error of trust of source for that sequence of events to have occurred.

So if they believed that, they should be talking about wall street theft, that can be seen, or debt of beer and travel money. Since they are trying to argue 'source accuracy' while saying people are believing wrong source.


For that reason I think it is a 'pick and choose' use of coverage, to avoid the groups that are pointing out real problems that matter.


You don't fight an issue, that would not exist, if it was defeatable by people trusting sources. If birther was real issue, then the issue would be to remove credibility of system that allows breaking of laws to occur on issues that people can see with common sense.

The birther issue is wrong on every angle, it is wrong on the face of it, wrong in the attempt, wrong in the battlefield, wrong in everyway. Hence why I think it is planned, by action, or pick and choose, to lead or paint a group as on wrong path.


Side note, the reason so many post on this site are not real is to try and break credibility of people that think like I do. shrug. So I understand the concept.