jasd fake

[jasd]

So, who was it made note of a Google comparison between “Obama SS number fake” and “jasd fake” on my disappeared thread “World Affairs”?—was that my friend lazmatazzz...? Well, tsk, tsk, tsk – no, no, no... it don’t work thataway. I Googled “jasd fake” and right off – noticed, of the very first proffers page 1, that there are all kinds of jasd/Jasd/JASD, etc; whereas one doing the same with Obama is led page after page after page to references of the the original and genuine O-b-a-m-a, and forged documents.

This jasd is nobody.

Anyway, that’s careless, whether to make a point or for research; besides, I made my reference tandem the following:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

So, lazy guys, SNOPES is only a minimal point from which to begin your search for accuracy. [ed.jasd]

If it warn’t you who Googled “jasd fake” – I erred, sorry.

By-the-way laz, that really is a box of skittles, yes?

So, summing... guess y’all’s not interested in truths, eh?—hard to see truths goin’ South headin’ Left, yes?

Google this: “Obama selective service card forgery”

“...huge questions remain for Barack Obama to answer. Who filed the Selective Service form and who signed his name? According to Debbie Schlussel, who wrote an exclusive on her findings regarding Obama’s Selective Service Registration card in 2008, the form a forger used was a SSS Form 1 that was issued in 1990. (lower left corner) Yet stamped by a postal clerk shows 1980! How did Obama complete a form 10 full years before the form was in use? That is just one of the multiple abnormalities identified by Debbie Schussel.

The Posse recreated the postal stamp that was used on Obama’s fraudulent form and figured out how it was made. They also noted that the stamp, the form signed by Obama and supposedly was missing two numbers identified in a normal year pattern of 4 digits i.e., 1980. The stamp print that the forger used was compared to other forms from the same time period and found they all used the entire sequence of 4 digits, 1980. On Obama’s form only the 80 was printed, and the 19 was missing.

Quickly after the Posse’s conference, the Left came to Obama’s defense saying that the ink didn’t penetrate the 1 and 9 and, therefore, those two numbers didn’t print. Well, they had to find an excuse for it! The Posse showed Obama’s stamp compared to other stamps from the same year and they all had complete 4 digit year markings. If the Left’s analysis was correct, then why was ink picked up in the numbers above the 08, in the circular line and the words beneath the 08? I think we will believe our own eyes and the forensic document experts and law enforcement officials who have identified the document as a forgery. The paid Leftist radicals who manufacture lies and deceive those who can not think for themselves are trying to defend the indefensible.”

The issue of these aberrant documents can be easily put to rest by simply releasing and/or unsealing any/all pertinent documents. Go on, guys – make all thems Tea Party types look as foolish as you say they are. Go on – jasd dares y’all... Cwaa! Cwaa! Cwaa!

You can bet I ain not holdin’ my breath. (shhhh, on the QT – himself is digitized ;-)

Lastly, ‘Obama’s SS number didn’t pass E-Verify’ -- Schlussel. Oh-no!—tell me it ain not so...! ;-)

[Bravus]

'Twas me who made the comparison, and it was an intentionally facile one. It was just to show that the fact that Google search results - even a lot of them - exist for something doesn't make it true.

The Right's misinformation machine on the web is huge and efficient, and can spread the same story, true or otherwise, far and fast. It can create a lot of hits with the exact same story posted in myriad sites.

Means zip about the truth value of the story. That's my point and my only point. Number of Google hits is an utterly meaningless metric for *anything*.

(might want to google 'google bombing' for examples of intentional manipulation...)

And then you've Gish galloped... it was about Obama's SSN, but when that story was shown to be utterly without foundation, it's now about his Selective Service.

What's next? And when do you take a step back and acknowledge the falseness of the prior allegations?

[jasd]

>>'Twas me who made the comparison,<<

You scallywag you – fixin’ to gobsmack ol’ jasd. ;-)

>>and it was an intentionally facile one.<<

Mebbe, too facile?

>>It was just to show that the fact that Google search results - even a lot of them - exist for something doesn't make it true.<<

Indeed not; however, I despaired seeing that I had to bring to everyone’s attention that SNOPES was not the be all end all – as source. Moreover, numbers do matter re Google. Try validating something with only 1 hit from Google...

>>The Right's misinformation machine on the web is huge and efficient,<<

Wow!—what’s that say about the MSM?—we’re scrued!—like totally!

>>and can spread the same story, true or otherwise, far and fast. It can create a lot of hits with the exact same story posted in myriad sites.<<

I suppose that goes for ‘diverse’ as well, yes?

>>Means zip about the truth value of the story. That's my point and my only point. Number of Google hits is an utterly meaningless metric for *anything*.<<

Try searching for information with only 1 hit from Google... Anyway,

‘swhy I emphasized the fact that Google hits are minimally a point of departure when researching “anything”.

>>(might want to google 'google bombing' for examples of intentional manipulation...)<<

I take your point; however, sadly there are but the very few who even give a rat’s fundament about the illegitimacy of Obama – thereby leaving just those very few to “google bomb’, which practically makes the point effectually moot.

>>And then you've Gish galloped... it was about Obama's SSN, but when that story was shown to be utterly without foundation, [ed.jasd]<<

Ya’think?—musta been Rightists google bombing – sitting on the fence tryin’ to make a dollar out of fifty cents, yes?

>>it's now about his Selective Service.<<

Schlussel did the seminal research re Obama’s Selective Service card forgery back in ’08. Anyway, I’d already stated in a previous thread that effectively, ‘this was but the half of it’ – meaning, the other shoe drops, the slippers, the Ugg boots, etc...

>>What's next? And when do you take a step back and acknowledge the falseness of the prior allegations?<<

Aw c’mon, Bravus, all of the documents are available as photos and images on youtube and elsewhere for you or anyone to make your/their own evaluation – every jot and tittle, as it were, cleaned and digitally enhanced for the layperson – who actually gives a rat’s fundament about truths. The clumsiness of the forgeries are absolutely astounding!—and if done by our Intelligence Services – I am deathly frightened, as it represents a scrue-you attitude by the Administration or our IS are going to be the death of us.