Yepp, Trump is still a birther!!

[Syriusly]

No matter how many times this gets debunked, it always cracks me up hearing it.

Has it? I can't keep up with all the debunking.

Yes, it has. There were higher totals in precincts in a college town where many students came from other parts of the state. And when all the numbers on a state-wide level were reviewed, the ballot count was kosher.

But numbnuts like you just can't get over it. You never will and you will be mocked for the rest of your life over it.

Thank you for the information. As for the rest of your comments. Fuck you. You and your other minions will be mocked for the rest of your lives for voting for this piece of shit POTUS. This guy will forever be your legacy. Gratz.

His legacy I'd holding up fine. I don't see him being remembered as a great president but I don't see him being remembered as a terrible one either. I see him falling somewhere near the middle. But his legacy of healthcare will last a generation, just like FDR's social security. And his 2 SC justices will be making an impact on cases for decades to come.

You say that like social security has been something to laud.

Yeah- social security- the only system worse than social security is what the opponents have to offer- nada.

 

[RKMBrown]

Has it? I can't keep up with all the debunking.

Yes, it has. There were higher totals in precincts in a college town where many students came from other parts of the state. And when all the numbers on a state-wide level were reviewed, the ballot count was kosher.

But numbnuts like you just can't get over it. You never will and you will be mocked for the rest of your life over it.

Thank you for the information. As for the rest of your comments. Fuck you. You and your other minions will be mocked for the rest of your lives for voting for this piece of shit POTUS. This guy will forever be your legacy. Gratz.

His legacy I'd holding up fine. I don't see him being remembered as a great president but I don't see him being remembered as a terrible one either. I see him falling somewhere near the middle. But his legacy of healthcare will last a generation, just like FDR's social security. And his 2 SC justices will be making an impact on cases for decades to come.

You say that like social security has been something to laud.

Yeah- social security- the only system worse than social security is what the opponents have to offer- nada.

My 401k is better than social security by an order of magnitude. What you call nothing ... I call a good investment. Social security is nothing but a dumb ass pyramid scheme.

 

[Syriusly]

Birthers have spent millions to promote their conspiracy, why haven't they hired an independent private investigator to try to prove some of their accusations?

Obama should try to keep his privacy just like anyone else tries to keep their privacy within the law.....but plenty of private investigators STILL come up with results on what they are investigating or who they are investigating, without the permission of the person being investigated.

-Passenger lists from airlines flying to or from Kenya back in 1961
-Customs records from 1961 for Honolulu with her reentry in to the USA with child.
-US Passport records to see if his mother even had a passport when she was 17

etc etc etc etc

there is so much that could have been investigated by birthers, YET....these things aren't even touched by them, WHY?

Would it put an end to their conspiracy right quickly? and no more money to be made by blogging and right wing sites that rely on this topic to make their money? Who knows?

The courts have blocked all attempts at getting to said information. Apparently Obama's records are a closely held secret.

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

 

[Skylar]

Birthers have spent millions to promote their conspiracy, why haven't they hired an independent private investigator to try to prove some of their accusations?

Obama should try to keep his privacy just like anyone else tries to keep their privacy within the law.....but plenty of private investigators STILL come up with results on what they are investigating or who they are investigating, without the permission of the person being investigated.

-Passenger lists from airlines flying to or from Kenya back in 1961
-Customs records from 1961 for Honolulu with her reentry in to the USA with child.
-US Passport records to see if his mother even had a passport when she was 17

etc etc etc etc

there is so much that could have been investigated by birthers, YET....these things aren't even touched by them, WHY?

Would it put an end to their conspiracy right quickly? and no more money to be made by blogging and right wing sites that rely on this topic to make their money? Who knows?

The courts have blocked all attempts at getting to said information. Apparently Obama's records are a closely held secret.

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Obama's records are as 'secret' as anyone else's.

Remember, you don't have a right to anyone else's transcript.

Uhmm you do know that our government is scanning over all of our "secret" records 24/7, right?

You do know that you have no right to anyone else's transcripts, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, it has. There were higher totals in precincts in a college town where many students came from other parts of the state. And when all the numbers on a state-wide level were reviewed, the ballot count was kosher.

But numbnuts like you just can't get over it. You never will and you will be mocked for the rest of your life over it.

Thank you for the information. As for the rest of your comments. Fuck you. You and your other minions will be mocked for the rest of your lives for voting for this piece of shit POTUS. This guy will forever be your legacy. Gratz.

His legacy I'd holding up fine. I don't see him being remembered as a great president but I don't see him being remembered as a terrible one either. I see him falling somewhere near the middle. But his legacy of healthcare will last a generation, just like FDR's social security. And his 2 SC justices will be making an impact on cases for decades to come.

You say that like social security has been something to laud.

Yeah- social security- the only system worse than social security is what the opponents have to offer- nada.

My 401k is better than social security by an order of magnitude. What you call nothing ... I call a good investment. Social security is nothing but a dumb ass pyramid scheme.

Your 401K is better- unless the stock market and bond market crashes.

And you still will get your social security. And I will still get mine.

For millions of Americans social security is all that they will have.

 

[RKMBrown]

The courts have blocked all attempts at getting to said information. Apparently Obama's records are a closely held secret.

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

 

[Skylar]

The courts have blocked all attempts at getting to said information. Apparently Obama's records are a closely held secret.

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

And thus the flaw in Brown's process. As his only basis of demanding evidence.....is his imagination. Oddly, he never demands evidence for any of the batshit conspiracies he wants debunked.

 

[RKMBrown]

The courts have blocked all attempts at getting to said information. Apparently Obama's records are a closely held secret.

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Obama's records are as 'secret' as anyone else's.

Remember, you don't have a right to anyone else's transcript.

Uhmm you do know that our government is scanning over all of our "secret" records 24/7, right?

You do know that you have no right to anyone else's transcripts, right?

You know that before the un-patriot act our government was not allowed to access our papers without a court order right? Hypocrisy.

 

[RKMBrown]

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

And thus the flaw in Brown's process. As his only basis of demanding evidence.....is his imagination. Oddly, he never demands evidence for any of the batshit conspiracies he wants debunked.

I never said I could demand shit. I simply asked for stuff.. It's not against the law, yet, to ask for stuff.

 

[Skylar]

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

 

[Syriusly]

What does the Court have to do with a Private Investigator?

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not catch 22.

Our system protects us(somewhat) from nutjobs who want to sue or prosecute without any evidence.

If I accuse you of stealing my identity- I have to provide some evidence of the claims.

Why does that bother you that the accuser has to have some evidence before getting access to your private records?

 

[Skylar]

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

And thus the flaw in Brown's process. As his only basis of demanding evidence.....is his imagination. Oddly, he never demands evidence for any of the batshit conspiracies he wants debunked.

I never said I could demand shit. I simply asked for stuff.. It's not against the law, yet, to ask for stuff.

If you're in court trying to get access to someone's college records, you're not making a gentle suggestion. You're demanding records.

And the court rightly told your ilk to go fuck themselves. As your imagination doesn't give you any right to anyone else's personal records.

 

[Skylar]

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not catch 22.

Our system protects us(somewhat) from nutjobs who want to sue or prosecute without any evidence.

If I accuse you of stealing my identity- I have to provide some evidence of the claims.

Why does that bother you that the accuser has to have some evidence before getting access to your private records?

Because it holds them to some of the same standards they are demanding. Requiring that they base their demands for evidence.....on evidence.

And conspiracy theorists rarely enjoy meeting their own standards.

 

[RKMBrown]

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

It's not irrational to ask if a guy born to a bigamist kenyan is American or not. It is however irrational to believe everything this government tells you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

And thus the flaw in Brown's process. As his only basis of demanding evidence.....is his imagination. Oddly, he never demands evidence for any of the batshit conspiracies he wants debunked.

I never said I could demand shit. I simply asked for stuff.. It's not against the law, yet, to ask for stuff.

If you're in court trying to get access to someone's college records, you're not making a gentle suggestion. You're demanding records.

And the court rightly told your ilk to go fuck themselves. As your imagination doesn't give you any right to anyone else's personal records.

I'm not in the courts. I have not made such a demand to see Obama's records. I merely posted to the board here that I'd like to see them. Do you not understand the difference between courts and this web site?

 

[Syriusly]

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

It's not irrational to ask if a guy born to a bigamist kenyan is American or not. .

Its pretty irrational- since the law doesn't care whether an American's father was a bigamist or not. That would just be you.

 

[paulitician]

Back Hussein Obama was likely educated by way of foreign student-funded programs. Could be why they won't allow the records to be released to the Public. However, any records released now would be highly dubious. The cover-up has already been completed.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

It's not irrational to ask if a guy born to a bigamist kenyan is American or not. It is however irrational to believe everything this government tells you.

 

[RKMBrown]

There have been attempts to gain access to the records. The courts have blocked them.

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not catch 22.

Our system protects us(somewhat) from nutjobs who want to sue or prosecute without any evidence.

If I accuse you of stealing my identity- I have to provide some evidence of the claims.

Why does that bother you that the accuser has to have some evidence before getting access to your private records?

It doesn't bother me. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of protecting the POTUS' records while simultaneously browsing through every private email and text message of every American. As for said evidence I'm just asking for it. If he doesn't want anyone looking at his records that's his right, no? Even if it is HIGHLY HYPOCRITICAL OF HIM.

 

[paulitician]

Not to those records.

What has happened is that there have been lawsuits seeking to declare Obama illegible.

Those lawsuits have all been dismissed.
The courts didn't block anything- the cases were dismissed before there was any discovery.

Because the litigants had no case.

The courts are not there to authorize fishing expeditions by people who can't find any evidence of wrong doing, so ask the courts to open the defendents records so that they can try to find some evidence.

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

It's not irrational to ask if a guy born to a bigamist kenyan is American or not. It is however irrational to believe everything this government tells you.

Not to mention, his mother and father hated America. They were both virulent Anti-American Communists. Pretty much sums him up as well, no?

 

[RKMBrown]

Catch-22...

No its not Catch 22.

Lets say I accuse you of stealing my identity- and sue you for it.

I have no evidence that you actually did steal my identity- but I think someone must have done it because my bank account has no money in it.

So I go to court and ask them for access to all of your financial records, and for access to your computer hard drive, and email records and cell phone records- to go find some evidence.

The courts tell me politely- to fuck off- because discovery only happens after several qualifications- among them I need to provide some evidence to support my allegations.

Correct, then you would only have suppositions / accusations. You can't look at the evidence you would need to prove your accusations because the courts won't let you look without proof of your suppositions. Catch 22.

Not if you apply an even remotely rational standard. For example, that the baseless accusations you demand be 'debunked' have a basis of evidence. Which they don't.

Otherwise, you're arguing your imagination. And demanding that anything you can possibly make up be debunked.

Which is quite irrational.

It's not irrational to ask if a guy born to a bigamist kenyan is American or not. .

Its pretty irrational- since the law doesn't care whether an American's father was a bigamist or not. That would just be you.

I'm not the law, am I?